Last Month at the Supreme Court | March 2025

The March 2025 edition of Last Month at the Supreme Court spotlights a pivotal Supreme Court decision expanding the reach of the False Claims Act to E-Rate reimbursement requests—an outcome that increases compliance risks for companies involved in public-private funding.

This edition also explores other significant questions before the Court, including:

• • The evidentiary burden for proving reverse discrimination under Title VII
  • The finality standards when amending a complaint post-judgment
  • The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s authority to license private companies
  • Standing requirements for non-parties challenging federal agency orders

Stay tuned for analysis on these and other critical issues shaping the legal landscape for your business. For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Susan Feibus, Mark Magyar, Kyle Asher, Christopher Sakauye, Monika Harris, or Ryan VanOver.

---

The Supreme Court Weighs Rule 60(B) Finality Against Rule 15(A)

Earlier this month, in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, the Supreme Court considered whether a court must balance the finality principles of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) with the liberal amendment policies of Rule 15(a) when plaintiffs seek to reopen a final judgment to file an amended complaint. Read the full synopsis here.  

Supreme Court Tackles Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Powers and Nonparty Challenges to Final Orders

Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas raises significant questions about the scope of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s decision-making and who can contest those decisions. The issues before the Court are whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may license private companies to store depleted nuclear fuel and whether a nonparty can challenge the agency’s final orders. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Broadens False Claims Act Reach To E-Rate Reimbursement Requests

In a significant and unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court held that reimbursement requests submitted to the E-Rate program qualify as “claims” under the False Claims Act (FCA) if any portion of the funds involved originates from the U.S. Treasury. The decision in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath is poised to have far-reaching implications for entities that receive federal funds through intermediaries, heightening litigation and raising the stakes for FCA compliance. Read the full synopsis here.

Supreme Court To Rule on Additional Burden for Reverse Discrimination Claims

The Supreme Court is set to resolve a critical issue in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services—whether majority-group plaintiffs must meet a higher evidentiary burden to prove reverse discrimination under Title VII. The case challenges the long-standing requirement that plaintiffs from majority groups must establish “background circumstances” suggesting discrimination, a standard not applied to minority-group plaintiffs. Read the full synopsis here.

Justices’ Revival Ruling In Bias Suit Exceeds Procedural Issue

Chris Sakauye authored the Law360 Expert Analysis article, “Justices’ Revival Ruling In Bias Suit Exceeds Procedural Issue.” Sakauye’s article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services Inc., which clarified that Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to reopen a voluntarily dismissed case under Rule 41(a). The decision provides a potential lifeline for plaintiffs who must dismiss cases due to arbitration requirements but later seek judicial review, particularly when statutes of limitations have expired. Read the full article on Law360.