Amicus Curiae Briefs

In Murray v. UBS, the Court addressed whether the "retaliatory intent" by an employer was required to enforce to the anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

In Butler v. Board of County Commissioners for San Miguel County, the Supreme Court addressed public employees' First Amendment right to testify in court proceedings.

In Cochise Consultancy v. U.S., the Supreme Court addressed whether relators should rely on the statute of limitation in the False Claims Act when the government declines to intervene.

In Eller v. Idaho State Police, Idaho Supreme Court rejected a lower court’s decision to limit the amount of money awarded Brandon Eller for his bravery in blowing the whistle on the Idaho State Police.

In Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, the Supreme Court addressed who is considered a whistleblower with protections of anti-retaliation provisions under the Dodd-Frank Act.

In Universal Health Services v. United States, ex rel. Escobar, the Supreme Court upheld a whistleblower’s claim and affirmed the “implied certification theory” of liability under the False Claims Act (FCA).

In Genberg v. Porter, the court addressed the definition of reasonable belief under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), which whistleblowers must meet in order to be protected.

In Darin Jones v. Dept. of Justice, the whistleblower sought protection after he endured retaliation on the job for disclosing over $40 million worth of improper spending.

In State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby, the Supreme Court ruled that a company which had violated the FCA would indeed be liable for a significant financial sanction.

In Day v. Department of Homeland Security, the court considered whether or not the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) applied retroactively to whistleblower cases filed before the law was passed.

In Wiest v. Lynch, the whistleblower sought whistleblower protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) and under Pennsylvania law.

In Lawson v. FMR LLC, the Supreme Court addressed the First Circuit Court's misconstrued interpretation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) to deny protection to the employees of contractors of publicly traded companies.

In English v. General Electric Company, the Supreme Court considered whether federal law preempts a state law cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress in the area of nuclear safety.

In Sylvester v. Parexel International, the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) held that a whistleblower only needs a “reasonable belief” of a violation to engage in protected activity under the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX).

In Haddle v. Garrison, the court addressed a case of retaliation for obeying a federal grand jury subpoena and to deter the employee from testifying at their upcoming criminal trial for Medicare fraud.

In EEOC v. Waffle House, the Supreme Court protected a whistleblower after the job retaliation even after the whistleblower signed a binding arbitration clause.

In Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States, the Supreme ruled that Congress has the authority to protect the federal treasury by enlisting citizen relators, or whistleblowers.

In Beck v. Belezza et al., the Supreme Court addressed how the RICO Act gave standing to whistleblowers injured by their attempts to disclose or oppose racketeering activities by their employers under civil RICO provisions.

In Mann v. Heckler & Koch Defense, the court addressed the case of a whistleblower who exposed a fraud in which his employer intentionally submitted false information about firearms to be sold to the Secret Service.

In Stone v. Instrumentation Laboratory Company, the court addressed the interpretation of a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 governing the filing of whistleblower lawsuits in federal district court.

In Powers v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, the ARB strove to apply “the ‘contributing factor’ test in whistleblower retaliation cases arising under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) and other whistleblower statutes.”

In Parkinson v. Dept. of Justice, The case focused on a review of the Federal Circuit’s decision “denying veterans preference-eligible FBI employees the right to raise whistleblowing as an affirmative defense in an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.”

In Kalyanaram v. New York Institute of Technology, the question is raised as to whether a whistleblower is required to reveal that they have filed a False Claims Act (“FCA”) case.

In Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hospital, 20 public interest groups, including the National Whistleblower Center (“NWC”), joined together and filed an amicus brief in support of Dr. Mileikowsky.

In Taylor v. Sturgell, the court addressed whether the dismissal of a claim based on a FOIA request prevents a second individual from bringing a similar claim on the grounds of “visual representation".

In Villanueva v. Core Laboratories, the whistleblower raised the question of whether SOX can apply to employees who work on off-shore subsidiaries.  

In Schroeder v. Greater New Orleans Federal Credit Union, the court addresses whether whistleblower protections should extend to individuals who disclosed information to internal supervisors, instead of only to those who disclosed to federal agencies.

In Northover v. Archuleta, the court addresses the question of whether the Merit System Protections Board and the U.S Court of Appeals can review a decision that an employee is unqualified to serve in a position that is classified as “sensitive,” but that does not require a security clearance.

In Insigna v. IRS, the National Whistleblower Center filed an amicus brief urging the Court to enforce the IRS (the respondent)'s requirement to determine the amount of the award for the case petitioner within a limited number of days.

In Kansas Gas & Electric v. Brock, the court addressed whether whistleblower protections are only available to those who disclosed complaints internally.

In Evans v. EPA,the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) decided that Aschroft v. Iqbal should be applied to whistleblower complaints filed with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”).