Wisconsin lawsuit against Bell and future of FCA enforcement – Regulatory Oversight
In 2025, the landscape for False Claims Act (FCA) litigation is already showing signs of significant activity. Recent executive orders hint at potential expansions of the FCA as a key enforcement tool, creating anticipation for what lies ahead. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently weighed in on FCA matters, adding to the flurry of developments in this arena.
On February 21, the Supreme Court issued a crucial opinion in Wisconsin Bell v. United States ex rel. Health, establishing that requests for reimbursements made to the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) E-rate program qualify as “claims” under the FCA. The E-rate program is designed to ensure access to telecommunications services, such as the internet, for all individuals. By providing subsidies for internet and telecommunications services to underserved populations, the FCC works towards its mission. While a substantial portion of the E-Rate program’s funds come from private telecommunications companies, some funds originate from the U.S. Treasury. Despite the defendants’ arguments in Wisconsin Bell that the program’s funds were managed by private entities, the Supreme Court ruled that if federal funds are combined, even in part, with private funds, the program falls within the purview of the FCA. The court articulated that the FCA only necessitates that federal funds contribute “any portion,” not the entirety, of the requested sums.
The Supreme Court’s definition of “claim” holds significant implications for private companies, especially in light of the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement initiatives. In a memo issued in February 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi outlined plans for a report on how DOJ should address promoting an end to illegal discrimination and preferences in the private sector, including Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies. Drawing on Executive Order 14173 (EO 14173), Bondi signaled forthcoming FCA enforcement actions against private entities that receive federal funds while operating DEI programs. The certification requirement under EO 14173 underscores the heightened focus on potential FCA enforcement against such companies. Against this backdrop, the ruling in Wisconsin v. Bell adds weight to the possibility of FCA claims against private entities that receive even minimal government funding.
As the year progresses, stakeholders across the industry will be closely monitoring the enforcement strategies emerging from the DOJ. The interplay of federal funds and private initiatives is a crucial point of consideration for companies navigating the evolving FCA landscape. The Supreme Court’s elucidation of what constitutes a “claim” under the FCA underscores the need for heightened awareness on compliance and potential government enforcement actions. The year ahead is poised to be marked by further developments in FCA litigation and enforcement, with private companies receiving federal funding facing increased scrutiny and potential exposure to FCA claims.
