Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Petitioner, v. United States ex rel. Stevens
United States Supreme Court
529 U.S. 765 (2000)
Jonathan Stevens (plaintiff) used to work for the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (the agency) (defendant). Stevens brought a qui tam action against the agency under the False Claims Act (FCA). Stevens alleged that the agency had fraudulently overreported the time that agency employees worked on certain federal-grant-funded projects to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As a result, the federal government disbursed grant money to the agency greater than the amount to which the agency was entitled. The federal government declined to intervene in the action, so Stevens litigated the case himself. The agency appealed, arguing that Stevens lacked Article III standing to maintain an action against the agency.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 708,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 708,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.