author: Justice Scalia Justice Breyer Justice Stevens,

text:
    ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP. et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
    No. 05-1272.
    Argued December 5, 2006
    Decided March 27, 2007

      Scaua, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Auto, JJ., joined. Stevens, J.', filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined, post, p. 479. Breyer, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

      Maureen E. Mahoney argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the briefs were J. Scott Ballenger, Barry J. Blonien, Christopher J. Koenigs, and Michael B. Carroll.

      Maria T. Vullo argued the cause for respondent Stone. With her on the brief were Evan Norris and Hartley David Alley.

      Malcolm L. Stewart argued the cause for respondent United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Keisler, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Douglas N. Letter, and Peter R. Maier

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Hospital Association et al. by Jonathan L. Diesenhaus and Catherine E. Stetson; for BP America Production Co. et al. by Donald B. Ayer, Michael P. Graham, and Daniel M. McClure; for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. by Herbert L. Fenster, Lawrence S. Ebner, Mark R. Troy, Robin S. Conrad, and Amar D. Sarwal; for the National Defense Industrial Association by Alan A. Pemberton and Sarah L. Wilson; and for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. -by Alan I. Horowitz, Robert K. Huffman, Peter B. Hutt II, Daniel J. Popeo, and Paul D. Kamenar.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund et al. by David C. Frederick, James

        W. Moorman, and Marissa M. Tirona; and for Patricia Haight et al. by Jeremy L. Friedman.

      Briefs of amici curiae were filed for Comstock Resources, Inc., by William Scott Hastings and John Robert Beatty; and for Senator Charles E. Grassley by John E. Clark.

   Justice Scalia

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The False Claims Act, 31 U. S. C. §§ 3729-3733, eliminates federal-court jurisdiction over actions under § 3730 of the Act that are based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions “unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.” § 3730(e)(4)(A). We decide whether respondent James Stone was an original source.

I

The mixture of concrete and pond sludge that is the subject of this case has taken nearly two decades to seep, so to speak, into this Court. Given the long history and the complexity of this litigation, it is well to describe the facts in some detail.

A

From 1975 through 1989, petitioner Rockwell International Corp. was under a management and operating contract with the Department of Energy (DOE) to run the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in Colorado. The most significant portion of Rockwell’s compensation came in the form of a semiannual “‘award fee,’” the amount of which depended on DOE’s evaluation of Rockwell’s performance in a number of areas, including environmental, safety, and health concerns. United States ex rel. Stone v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 92 Fed. Appx. 708, 714 (CA10 2004).

From November 1980 through March 1986, James Stone worked as an engineer at the Rocky Flats plant. In the early 1980’s, Rockwell explored the possibility of disposing of the toxic pond sludge that accumulated in solar evaporation ponds at the facility, by mixing it with cement. The idea was to pour the mixture into large rectangular boxes, where it would solidify into “pondcrete” blocks that could be stored onsite or transported to other sites for disposal.

Stone reviewed a proposed manufacturing process for pondcrete in 1982. He concluded that the proposal “would not work,” App. 175, and communicated that conclusion to Rockwell management in a written “Engineering Order.” As Stone would later explain, he believed “the suggested process would result in an unstable mixture that would later deteriorate and cause unwanted release of toxic wastes to the environment.” Ibid. He believed this because he “foresaw that the piping system” that extracted sludge from the solar ponds “would not properly remove the sludge and would lead to an inadequate mixture of sludge/waste and cement such that the ‘pond crete’ blocks would rapidly disintegrate thus creating additional contamination problems.” Id., at 290.

Notwithstanding Stone’s prediction, Rockwell proceeded with its pondcrete project and successfully manufactured “concrete hard” pondcrete during the period of Stone’s employment at Rocky Flats. It was only after Stone was laid off in March 1986 that what the parties have called “insolid” pondcrete blocks were discovered. According to respondents, Rockwell knew by October 1986 that a substantial number of pondcrete blocks were insolid, but DOE did not become aware of the problem until May 1988, when several pondcrete blocks began to leak, leading to the discovery of thousands of other insolid blocks. The media reported these discoveries, 3 Appellants’ App. in No. 99-1351 etc. (CA10), pp. 889-38 to 889-39, and attributed the malfunction to Rockwell’s reduction of the ratio of concrete to sludge in the mixture.

In June 1987, more than a year after he had left Rockwell’s employ, Stone went to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with allegations of environmental crimes at Rocky Flats during the time of his employment. According to the court below, Stone alleged that

“contrary to public knowledge, Rocky Flats accepted hazardous and nuclear waste from other DOE facilities; that Rockwell employees were ‘forbidden from discussing any controversies in front of a DOE employee’; that although Rocky Flats’ fluid bed incinerators failed testing in 1981, the pilot incinerator remained on line and was used to incinerate wastes daily since 1981, including plutonium wastes which were then sent out for burial; that Rockwell distilled and fractionated various oils and solvents although the wastes were geared for incineration; that Stone believed that the ground water was contaminated from previous waste burial and land application, and that hazardous waste lagoons tended to overflow during and after ‘a good rain,’ causing hazardous wastes to be discharged without first being treated.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a.

Stone provided the FBI with 2,300 pages of documents, buried among which was his 1982 engineering report predicting that the pondcrete-system design would not work. Stone did not discuss his pondcrete allegations with the FBI in their conversations.

Based in part on information allegedly learned from Stone, the Government obtained a search warrant for Rocky Flats, and on June 6, 1989, 75 FBI and Environmental Protection Agency agents raided the facility. The affidavit in support of the warrant included allegations (1) that pondcrete blocks were insolid “due to an inadequate waste-concrete mixture,” App. 429, (2) that Rockwell obtained award fees based on its alleged “ ‘excellent’ ” management of Rocky Flats, id., at 98, and (3) that Rockwell made false statements and concealed material facts in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 90 Stat. 2811, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 6928, and 18 U. S. C. § 1001. Newspapers published these allegations. In March 1992, Rockwell pleaded guilty to 10 environmental violations, including the knowing storage of insolid pondcrete blocks in violation of RCRA. Rockwell agreed to pay $18.5 million in fines.

B

In July 1989, Stone filed a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act. That Act prohibits false or fraudulent claims for payment to the United States, 31 U. S. C. § 3729(a), and authorizes civil actions to remedy such fraud to be brought by the Attorney General, § 3730(a), or by private individuals in the Government’s name, § 3730(b)(1). The Act provides, however, that “[n]o court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions .. . from the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.” § 3730(e)(4)(A). An “original source” is “an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and has voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing an action under this section which is based on the information.” § 3730(e)(4)(B).

Stone’s complaint alleged that Rockwell was required to comply with certain federal and state environmental laws and regulations, including RCRA; that Rockwell committed numerous violations of these laws and regulations throughout the 1980’s; and that, in order to induce the Government to make payments or approvals under Rockwell’s contract, Rockwell knowingly presented false and fraudulent claims to the Government in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U. S. C. § 3729(a). As required under the Act, Stone filed his complaint under seal and simultaneously delivered to the Government a confidential disclosure statement describing “substantially all material evidence and information” in his possession, § 3730(b)(2). The statement identified 26 environmental and safety issues, only one of which involved pondcrete. With respect to that issue, Stone explained in his statement that he had reviewed the design for the pondcrete system and had foreseen that the piping mechanism would not properly remove the sludge, which in turn would lead to an inadequate mixture of sludge and cement.

In December 1992, Rockwell moved to dismiss Stone’s action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the action was based on publicly disclosed allegations and that Stone was not an original source. The District Court denied the motion because, in its view, “Stone had direct and independent knowledge that Rockwell’s compensation was linked to its compliance with environmental, health and safety regulations and that it allegedly concealed its deficient performance so that it would continue to receive payments.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 61a.

The Government initially declined to intervene in Stone’s action, but later reversed course, and in November 1996, the District Court granted the Government’s intervention. Several weeks later, at the suggestion of the District Court, the Government and Stone filed a joint amended complaint. As relevant here, the amended complaint alleged that Rockwell violated RCRA by storing leaky pondcrete blocks, but did not allege that any defect in the piping system (as predicted by Stone) caused insolid pondcrete. Respondents clarified their allegations even further in a statement of claims which became part of the final pretrial order and which superseded their earlier pleadings. This said that the pondcrete’s insolidity was due to “an incorrect cement/sludge ratio used in pondcrete operations, as well as due to inadequate process controls and inadequate inspection procedures.” App. 470. It continued:

“During the winter of 1986, Rockwell replaced its then pondcrete foreman, Norman Fryback, with Ron Teel. Teel increased pondcrete production rates in part by, among other things, reducing the amount of cement added to the blocks. Following the May 23, 1988 spill, Rockwell acknowledged that this reduced cement-to-sludge ratio was a major contributor to the existence of insufficiently solid pondcrete blocks on the storage pads.” Id., at 476-477.

The statement of claims again did not mention the piping problem asserted by Stone years earlier.

Respondents’ False Claims Act claims went to trial in 1999. None of the witnesses Stone had identified during discovery as having relevant knowledge testified at trial. And none of the documents Stone provided to the Government with his confidential disclosure statement was introduced in evidence at trial. Nor did respondents allege at trial that the defect in the piping system predicted by Stone caused insolid pondcrete. To the contrary, during closing arguments both Stone’s counsel and the Government’s counsel repeatedly explained to the jury that the pondcrete failed because Rockwell’s new foreman used an insufficient cement-to-sludge ratio in an effort to increase pondcrete production.

The verdict form divided the False Claims Act count into several different claims corresponding to different award-fee periods. The jury found in favor of respondents for the three periods covering, the pondcrete allegations (April 1, 1987, to September 30, 1988), and found for Rockwell as to the remaining periods. The jury awarded damages of $1,390,775.80, which the District Court trebled pursuant to 31 U. S. C. § 3729(a).

Rockwell filed a postverdict motion to dismiss Stone’s claims under § 3730(e)(4), arguing that the claims were based on publicly disclosed allegations and that Stone was not an original source. In response, Stone acknowledged that his successful claims were based on publicly disclosed allegations, but asserted original-source status. The District Court agreed with Stone. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed in relevant part, but remanded the case for the District Court to determine whether Stone had disclosed his information to the Government before filing his qui tam action, as § 3730(e)(4)(B) required. On remand, the District Court found that Stone had produced the 1982 engineering order to the Government, but that the order was insufficient to communicate Stone’s allegations. The District Court also found that Stone had not carried his burden of proving that he orally informed the FBI about his allegations before filing suit. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit disagreed with the District Court’s conclusion and held (over the dissent of Judge Briscoe) that the 1982 engineering order sufficed to carry Stone’s burden of persuasion. 92 Fed. Appx. 708. We granted certiorari, 548 U. S. 941 (2006), to decide whether Stone was an original source.

II

Section 3730(e)(4)(A) provides:

“No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or Government Accounting Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.” (Footnote omitted.)

As discussed above, § 3730(e)(4)(B) defines “original source” as “an individual who [1] has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and [2] has voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing an action under this section which is based on the information.” As this cáse comes to the Court, it is conceded that the claims on which Stone prevailed were based upon publicly disclosed allegations within the meaning of § 3730(e)(4)(A). The question is whether Stone qualified under the original-source exception to the public-disclosure bar.

We begin with the possibility that little analysis is required in this case, for Stone asserts that Rockwell conceded his original-source status. Rockwell responds that it conceded no such thing and that, even had it done so, the concession would have been irrelevant because § 3730(e)(4) is jurisdictional. We agree with the latter proposition. It is true enough that the word “jurisdiction” does not in every context connote subject-matter jurisdiction. Noting that “jurisdiction” is “ ‘a word of many, too many, meanings,’ ” we concluded in Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83 (1998), that establishing the elements of an offense was not made a jurisdictional matter merely because the statute creating the cause of action was phrased as providing for “jurisdiction” over such suits. Id., at 90 (quoting United States v. Vanness, 85 F. 3d 661, 663, n. 2 (CADC 1996)). Here, however, the issue is not whether casting the creation of a cause of action in jurisdictional terms somehow limits the general grant of jurisdiction under which that cause of action would normally be brought, but rather whether a clear and explicit withdrawal of jurisdiction withdraws jurisdiction. It undoubtedly does so. Just last Term we stated that, “[i]f the Legislature clearly states that a threshold limitation on a statute’s scope shall count as jurisdictional, then courts and litigants will be duly instructed and will not be left to wrestle with the issue.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 515-516 (2006) (footnote omitted). Here the jurisdictional nature of the original-source requirement is clear ex visceribus verborum. Indeed, we have already stated that § 3730(e)(4) speaks to “the power of a particular court” as well as “the substantive rights of the parties.” Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U. S. 939, 951 (1997).

Stone’s contrary position rests entirely on dicta from a single Court of Appeals decision, see United States ex rel. Fallon v. Accudyne Corp., 97 F. 3d 937, 940-941 (CA7 1996). Accudyne thought it significant that jurisdiction over False Claims Act cases is conferred by 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331 and 1345 (the federal-question and United-States-as-plaintiff provisions of the Judicial Code) and 31 U. S. C. § 3732(a) (the provision of the False Claims Act establishing federal-court venue and conferring federal-court jurisdiction over related state-law claims), rather than § 3730, which is the “section” referenced in § 3730(e)(4). To eliminate jurisdiction, the court believed, it is those jurisdiction-conferring sections that would have to be referenced. We know of nothing in logic or authority to support this. The jurisdiction-removing provision here does not say “no court shall have jurisdiction under this section,” but rather “no court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section.” That is surely the most natural way to achieve the desired result of eliminating jurisdiction over a category of False Claims Act actions — rather than listing all the conceivable provisions of the United States Code whose conferral of jurisdiction is being eliminated. (In addition to the provisions cited by the Accudyne court, one might also have to mention the diversity-jurisdiction provision, 28 U. S. C. § 1332, and the supplemental-jurisdiction provision, § 1367.) Accudyne next observed that the public-disclosure bar limits only who may speak for the United States on a subject and who if anyone gets a financial reward, not the “categories of disputes that may be resolved (a real ‘jurisdictional’ limit).” 97 F. 3d, at 941. But this is a classic begging of the question, which is precisely whether there has been removed from the courts’ jurisdiction that category of disputes consisting of False Claims Act qui tam suits based on publicly disclosed allegations as to which the relator is not an original source of the information. Nothing prevents Congress from defining the “category” of excluded suits in any manner it wishes. See, e. g., 28 U. S. C. § 1500 (no jurisdiction over “any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff... has pending in any other court any suit... against the United States”). Lastly, Accudyne asserted that “the Supreme Court had held that a similar reference to jurisdiction in the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U. S. C. §§ 101, 104, limits remedies rather than subject-matter jurisdiction.” 97 F. 3d, at 941 (citing Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Maintenance of Way Employes, 481 U. S. 429, 444-446 (1987)). But the language of the Norris-LaGuardia Act is in fact not similar. It provides that “[n]o court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute .. . ,” 29 U. S. C. § 104 (emphasis added). It is fa-dally a limitation upon the relief that can be accorded, not a removal of jurisdiction over “any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute.” Here, by contrast, the text says “[n]o court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section.”

Whether the point was conceded or not, therefore, we may, and indeed must, decide whether Stone met the jurisdictional requirement of being an original source.

III

We turn to the first requirement of original-source status, that the relator have “direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based.” 31 U. S. C. § 3730(e)(4)(B). Because we have not previously addressed this provision, several preliminary questions require our attention.

A

First, does the phrase “information on which the allegations are based” refer to the information on which the relator's allegations are based or the information on which the publicly disclosed allegations that triggered the public-disclosure bar are based? The parties agree it is the former. See Brief for Petitioners 26, n. 13; Brief for United States 24, and n. 8; Brief for Respondent Stone 15,21. But in view of our conclusion that f'3730(e)(4) is jurisdictional, we must satisfy ourselves that the parties’ position is correct.

Though the question is hardly free from doubt, we agree that the “information” to which subparagraph (B) speaks is the information upon which the relators’ allegations are based. To begin with, subparagraph (B) standing on its own suggests that disposition. The relator must have “direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based,” and he must “provid[e] the information to the Government before filing an action under this section which is based on the information.” Surely the information one would expect a relator to “provide to the Government before filing an action... based on the information” is the information underlying the relator’s claims.

Subparagraph (A) complicates matters. As described earlier, it bars actions based on the “public disclosure of allegations or transactions” and provides an exception for cases brought by “an original source of the information.” If the allegations referred to in subparagraph (B)’s phrase requiring “direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based” are the same “allegations” referred to in subparagraph (A), then original-source status would depend on knowledge of information underlying the publicly disclosed allegations. The principal textual difficulty with that interpretation is that subparagraph (A) does not speak simply of “allegations,” but of “allegations or transactions.” Had Congress wanted to link original-source status to information underlying the public disclosure, it would surely have used the identical phrase, “allegations or transactions”; there is no conceivable reason to require direct and independent knowledge of publicly disclosed allegations but not of publicly disclosed transactions.

The sense of the matter offers strong additional support for this interpretation. Section 3730(e)(4)(A) bars actions based on publicly disclosed allegations whether or not the information on which those allegations are based has been made public. It is difficult to understand why Congress would care whether a relator knows about the information underlying a publicly disclosed allegation (e. g., what a confidential source told a newspaper reporter about insolid pondcrete) when the relator has direct and independent knowledge of different information supporting the same allegation (e. g., that a defective process would inevitably lead to insolid pondcrete). Not only would that make little sense, it would raise nettlesome procedural problems, placing courts in the position of comparing the relator’s information with the often unknowable information on which the public disclosure was based. Where that latter information has not been disclosed (by reason, for example, of a reporter’s desire to protect his source), the relator would presumably be out of court. To bar a relator with direct and independent knowledge of information underlying his allegations just because no one can know what information underlies the similar allegations of some other person simply makes no sense.

The contrary conclusion of some lower courts rests on the following logic: The term “information” in subparagraph (B) must be read in tandem with the term “information” in sub-paragraph (A), and the term “information” in subparagraph (A) refers to the information on which the publicly disclosed allegations are based. See, e. g., United States ex rel. Laird v. Lockheed Martin Eng. & Science Servs. Co., 336 F. 3d 346, 354 (CA5 2003). The major premise of this reasoning seems true enough: “information” in (A) and (B) means the same thing. The minor premise, however — that “information” in (A) refers to the information underlying the publicly disclosed allegations or transactions — is highly questionable. The complete phrase at issue is “unless ... the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.” It seems to us more likely (in light of the analysis set forth above) that the information in question is the information underlying the action referred to a few words earlier, to wit, the action “based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions” referred to at the beginning of the provision. On this interpretation, “information” in subparagraph (A) and “information on which the allegations are based” in sub-paragraph (B) are one and the same, viz., information underlying the allegations of the relator’s action.

B

Having determined that the phrase “information on which the allegations are based” refers to the relator’s allegations and not the publicly disclosed allegations, we confront more textual ambiguity: Which of the relator’s allegations are the relevant ones? Stone’s allegations changed during the course of the litigation, yet he asks that we look only to his original complaint. Rockwell argues that Stone must satisfy the original-source exception through all stages of the litigation.

In our view, the term “allegations” is not limited to the allegations of the original complaint. It includes (at a minimum) the allegations in the original complaint as amended. The statute speaks not of the allegations in the “original complaint” (or even the allegations in the “complaint”), but of the relator’s “allegations” simpliciter. Absent some limitation of § 3730(e)(4)’s requirement to the relator’s initial complaint, we will not infer one. Such a limitation would leave the relator free to plead a trivial theory of fraud for which he had some direct and independent knowledge and later amend the complaint to include theories copied from the public domain or from materials in the Government’s possession. Even the Government concedes that new allegations regarding a fundamentally different fraudulent scheme require reevaluation of the court’s jurisdiction. See Brief for United States 40; Tr. of Oral Arg. 40.

The rule that subject-matter jurisdiction “depends on the state of things at the time of the action brought,” Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 539 (1824), does not suggest a different interpretation. The state of things and the originally alleged state of things are not synonymous; demonstration that the original allegations were false will defeat jurisdiction. Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694, 701 (1891); Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315, 326 (1889). So also will the withdrawal of those allegations, unless they are replaced by others that establish jurisdiction. Thus, when a plaintiff files a complaint in federal court and then voluntarily amends the complaint, courts look to the amended complaint to determine jurisdiction. See Wellness Community-Nat. v. Wellness House, 70 F. 3d 46, 49 (CA7 1995); Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 759 F. 2d 504, 508 (CA5 1985).

Here, we have not only an amended complaint, but a final pretrial order that superseded all prior pleadings and “confronted] the subsequent course of the action,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 16(e). See Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 190, n. 1 (1974) (where a claim was not included in the complaint, but was included in the pretrial order, “it is irrelevant that the pleadings were never formally amended” (citing Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 15(b), 16)); Wilson v. Muckala, 303 F. 3d 1207, 1215 (CA10 2002) (“[C]laims, issues, defenses, or theories of damages not included in the pretrial order are waived even if they appeared in the complaint and, conversely, the inclusion of a claim in the pretrial order is deemed to amend any previous pleadings which did not include that claim”); Syrie v. Knoll Int’l, 748 F. 2d 304,308 (CA5 1984) (“[incorporation of a [new] claim into the pre-trial order ... amends the previous pleadings to state [the new] claim”). In these circumstances, we look to the allegations as amended — here, the statement of claims in the final pretrial order — to determine original-source status.

The Government objects that this approach risks driving a wedge between the Government and relators. It worries that future relators might decline to “acquiesc[e]” in the Government’s tactical decision to narrow the claims in a case if that would eliminate jurisdiction with respect to the relator. Brief for United States 44. Even if this policy concern were valid, it would not induce us to determine jurisdiction on the basis of whether the relator is an original source of information underlying allegations that he no longer makes.

IV

Judged according to the principles set forth above, Stone’s knowledge falls short. The only false claims ultimately found by the jury (and hence the only ones to which our jurisdictional inquiry is pertinent to the outcome) involved false statements with respect to environmental, safety, and health compliance over a U/2-year period between April 1, 1987, and September 30, 1988. As described by Stone and the Government in the final pretrial order, the only pertinent problem with respect to this period of time for which Stone claimed to have direct and independent knowledge was insolid pondcrete. Because Stone was no longer employed by Rockwell at the time, he did not know that the pondcrete was insolid; he did not know that pondcrete storage was even subject to RCRA; he did not know that Rockwell would fail to remedy the defect; he did not know that the insolid pondcrete leaked while being stored on-site; and, of course, he did not know that Rockwell made false statements to the Government regarding pondcrete storage.

Stone’s prediction that the pondcrete would be insolid because of a flaw in the piping system does not qualify as “direct and independent knowledge” of the pondcrete defect. Of course a qui tam relator’s misunderstanding of why a concealed defect occurred would normally be immaterial as long as he knew the defect actually existed. But here Stone did not know that the pondcrete failed; he predicted it. Even if a prediction can qualify as direct and independent knowledge in some cases (a point we need not address), it assuredly does not do so when its premise of cause and effect is wrong. Stone’s prediction was a failed prediction, disproved by Stone’s own allegations. As Stone acknowledged, Rockwell was able to produce “concrete hard” pondcrete using the machinery Stone said was defective. According to respondents’ allegations in the final pretrial order, the insolidity problem was caused by a new foreman’s reduction of the cement-to-sludge ratio in the winter of 1986, long after Stone had left Rocky Flats.

Stone counters that his original-source status with respect to his spray-irrigation claim (which related to a time period different from that for his pondcrete claim, App. 492) provided jurisdiction with respect to all of his claims. We disagree. Section 3730(e)(4) does not permit jurisdiction in gross just because a relator is an original source with respect to some claim. We, along with every court to have addressed the question, conclude that § 3730(e)(4) does not permit such claim smuggling. See United States ex rel. Merena v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 205 F. 3d 97, 102 (CA3 2000); Hays v. Hoffman, 325 F. 3d 982, 990 (CA8 2003); Wang ex rel. United States v. FMC Corp., 975 F. 2d 1412, 1415-1416, 1420 (CA9 1992). As then-judge Alito explained, “[t]he plaintiff’s decision to join all of his or her claims in a single lawsuit should not rescue claims that would have been doomed by section (e)(4) if they had been asserted in a separate action. And likewise, this joinder should not result in the dismissal of claims that would have otherwise survived.” SmithKline Beecham, supra, at 102.

Because Stone did not have direct and independent knowledge of the information upon which his allegations were based, we need not decide whether Stone met the second requirement of original-source status, that he have voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing his action.

V

Respondents contend that even if Stone failed the original-source test as to his pondcrete allegations, the Government’s intervention in his case provided an independent basis of jurisdiction. Section 3730(e)(4)(A) permits jurisdiction over an action based on publicly disclosed allegations or transactions if the action is “brought by the Attorney General.” Respondents say that any inquiry into Stone’s original-source status with respect to amendments to the complaint was unnecessary because the Government had intervened, making this an “action brought by the Attorney General.” Even assuming that Stone was an original source of allegations in his initial complaint, we reject respondents’ “intervention” argument.

The False Claims Act contemplates two types of actions. First, under § 3730(a), “[i]f the Attorney General finds that a person has violated or is violating section 3729, the Attorney General may bring a civil action under this section against the person.” Second, under §3730(b), “[a] person may bring an action for a violation of section 3729 for the person and for the United States Government.” When a private person brings an action under § 3730(b), the Government may elect to “proceed with the action,” §3730(b)(4)(A), or it may “deelin[e] to take over the action, in which case the person bringing the action shall have the right to conduct the action,” § 3730(b)(4)(B). The statute thus draws a sharp distinction between actions brought by the Attorney General under § 3730(a) and actions brought by a private person under § 3730(b). An action brought by a private person does not become one brought by the Government just because the Government intervenes and elects to “proceed with the action.” Section 3730 elsewhere refers to the Government’s “proeeed[ing] with an action brought by a person under subsection (b)” — which makes crystal clear the distinction between actions brought by the Government and actions brought by a relator where the Government intervenes but does not oust the relator. § 3730(d).

Does this conclusion cast into doubt the courts’ jurisdiction with respect to the Government as well? After all, § 3730(e)(4)(A) bars jurisdiction over any action brought under § 3730, as this one was, unless the action is brought (1) by the Attorney General or (2) by an original source; and we have concluded that this is brought by neither. Not even petitioners have suggested the bizarre result that the Government’s judgment must be set aside. It is readily enough avoided, as common sense suggests it must be, by holding that an action originally brought by a private person, which the Attorney General has joined, becomes an action brought by the Attorney General once the private person has been determined to lack the jurisdictional prerequisites for suit. The outcome would be similar to that frequently produced in diversity-jurisdiction cases, where the “courts of appeals ... have the authority to cure a jurisdictional defect by dismissing a dispensable nondiverse party.” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L. P., 541 U. S. 567, 573 (2004) (citing Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U. S. 826, 837 (1989)); see United States Steel Corp. v. EPA, 614 F. 2d 843, 845 (CA3 1979) (“[T]here are instances when an intervenor’s claim does not rise and fall with the claim of the original party”); 7C C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1920, p. 491 (2d ed. 1986) (“[A]n intervenor can proceed to decision after a dismissal of the original action ... if there are independent grounds for jurisdiction of the intervenor’s claim”). What is cured here, by the jurisdictional ruling regarding Stone’s claim, is the characterization of the action as one brought by an original source. The elimination of Stone leaves in place an action pursued only by the Attorney General, that can reasonably be regarded as being “brought” by him for purposes of § 3730(e)(4)(A).

* * *

We hold that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment in favor of Stone. We reverse the Tenth Circuit’s judgment to the contrary.

It is so ordered.

Justice Breyer

took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting.

Any private citizen may bring an action to enforce the False Claims Act, 31 U. S. C. §§ 3729-3733, unless the information on which his allegations are based is already in the public domain. Even if the information is publicly available, however, the citizen may still sue if he was an “original source” of that information. § 3730(e)(4)(A) (“No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions . .. unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information”). Because I believe the Court has misinterpreted these provisions to require that an “original source” in a qui tam action have knowledge of the actual facts underlying the allegations on which he may ultimately prevail, I respectfully dissent.

In my view, a plain reading of the statute’s provisions— specifically, §§ 3730(e)(4)(A) and (B) — makes clear that it is the information underlying the publicly disclosed allegations, not the information underlying the allegations in the relator’s complaint (original or amended), of which the relator must be an original source. Moreover, the statute’s use of the article “an,” rather than “the,” in describing the original source indicates that the relator need not be the sole source of the information.

By contrast, the majority’s approach suggests that the relator must have knowledge of actual facts supporting the theory ultimately proved at trial — in other words, knowledge of the information underlying the prevailing claims. See ante, at 475 (limiting the relevant jurisdictional inquiry to those “false claims ultimately found by the jury”). I disagree. Such a view is not supported by the statute, which requires only that the relator have “direct and independent knowledge” of the information on which the publicly disclosed allegations are based and that the relator provide such information to the Government in a timely manner. As I read the statute, the jurisdictional inquiry focuses on the facts in the public domain at the time the action is commenced. If the process of discovery leads to amended theories of recovery, amendments to the original complaint would not affect jurisdiction that was proper at the time of the original filing.

In this case, as the Court points out, the fact that Rockwell was storing thousands of insolid pondcrete blocks at the Rocky Flats facility had been publicly disclosed by the news media before Stone filed this lawsuit. Ante, at 461,462-463. In my view, the record establishes that Stone was an original source of the allegations publicly disclosed by the media in June 1989, even though he thought that the deterioration of the pondcrete blocks would be caused by poor engineering rather than a poor formula for the mixture. The search warrant that was executed on June 6,1989, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) affidavit that was released to the news media on June 9,1989, were both based, in part, on interviews with Stone and on information Stone had provided to the Government, including the 1982 Engineering Order.

With respect to earlier media coverage of the pondcrete leakage discovery in May 1988, however, Stone’s status as an original source is less obvious. Stone first went to the FBI with allegations of Rockwell’s environmental violations in March 1986. App. 180. He subsequently met with several FBI agents over the course of several years. Id., at ISO-182. During those meetings he provided the FBI with thousands of pages of documents, including the Engineering Order, in which he predicted that the pondcrete system design would not work. On the basis of that record, it seems likely that Stone (1) had “direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the [publicly disclosed] allegations [we]re based” and (2) voluntarily provided such information to the Government before filing suit. It is, however, his burden to establish that he did so. Because there has been no finding as to whether Stone was an original source as to those public disclosures, I would vacate and remand for a determination whether Stone was in fact an original source of the allegations publicly disclosed by the media in 1988 and 1989.

       Stone claimed the contrary, but the District Court found that he had failed to establish that fact.

        Qui tam is short for “qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in kac parte sequitur,” which means “who pursues this action on our Lord the King’s behalf as well as his own.”

       The laws and regulations allegedly violated included DOE Order Nos. 5480.2 (Dec. 13, 1982), 5483.1 as superseded by 5483.1A (June 22, 1983), and 6430.1 (Dec. 12, 1983) (DOE General Design Criteria Manual); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 25-5-501 et seq. (1982) (Hazardous Substances), 25-7-101 et seq. (1982 and Supp. 1988) (Air Quality Control Program), 25-7-501 et seq. (Supp. 1988) (Asbestos Control), 25-15-101 (1982 and Supp. 1988) (Hazardous Waste Management Act), 25-8-201 (Water Quality Control Act), 25-11-101 (Radiation Control), 29-22-101 (Hazardous Substance Incidents), 25-5-503 (1982), 25-8-506, 25-8-608 (1982 and Supp. 1988), 25-15-308 through 25-15-310, and 29-22-108 (1982); the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U. S. C. § 651 et seq.; the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2011 et seq.; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,42 U. S. C. § 5801 et seq.; the Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et seq.; the Clean Air Act, 42 U. S. C. § 7401 et seq.; the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U. S. C. §300f et seq.; and regulations promulgated under these statutes.

       In addition to the pondcrete allegations, respondents charged Rockwell with concealing problems with “saltcrete” (a mixture of cement and salt from liquid waste treatment processes) and "spray irrigation” (a method of disposing of waste water generated by the sewage treatment plant at Rocky Flats).

       The Courts of Appeals have divided over the question. See United States ex rel. Laird v. Lockheed Martin Eng. & Science Servs. Co., 336 F. 3d 346, 353-355 (CA5 2003) (describing the Courts of Appeals’ divergent approaches). Only by demoting the actual text of § 3730(e)(4) to a footnote and then paraphrasing the statute in a way that assumes his conclusion can Justice Stevens assert (without further analysis) that the statute’s meaning is “plain.” See post, at 479-480 (dissenting opinion).

       It is true that, when a defendant removes a case to federal court based on the presence of a federal claim, an amendment eliminating the original basis for federal jurisdiction generally does not defeat jurisdiction. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U. S. 343, 346, 357 (1988); St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U. S. 283, 293 (1938). But removal cases raise forum-manipulation concerns that simply do not exist when it is the plaintiff who chooses a federal forum and then pleads away jurisdiction through amendment.

       The Government includes a significant caveat: In its view, intervention does not cure any pre-existing defects in Stone’s initial complaint; it only cures defects resulting from amendments to the pleadings.

       Section 3730(e)(4)(A) states:
      “No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or Government Accounting Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.” (Footnote omitted.)
      Section 3730(e)(4)(B) then states:
      “For purposes of this paragraph, ‘original source' means an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and has voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing an action under this section which is based on the information.”

       The majority’s approach requires courts to reevaluate jurisdiction over a qui tam action brought by an original source every time the complaint is amended. Such an approach, the Government has argued, will interfere with its ability to tailor the claims advanced as it sees appropriate. By contrast, under the approach I would adopt, the jurisdictional inquiry relates only to whether the relator was an original source of the information underlying the public disclosures, which can easily be determined when an action is filed and need not be revisited during later stages of the litigation.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Thomas Justice Souter,

license: Public Domain

text:
    LIMTIACO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GUAM v. CAMACHO, GOVERNOR OF GUAM
    No. 06-116.
    Argued January 8, 2007
    Decided March 27, 2007

      Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Part II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III, and IV, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Stevens, Ginsburg, and Auto, JJ., joined, post, p. 492.

      Seth P. Waxman argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Randolph D. Moss and Jonathan G. Cedarbaum.

      Beth S. Brinkmann argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Seth M. Galanter, Seth M. Hufstedler, Shirley M. Hufstedler, Arthur B. Clark, Rodney J. Jacob, Daniel M. Benjamin, Kathleen V Fisher, and Arne D. Wagner.

   Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Legislature of Guam authorized Guam’s Governor to issue bonds to fund the Territory’s continuing obligations. Concluding that the bonds would violate the debt-limitation provision of the Organic Act of Guam, §11, 64 Stat. 387, as amended, 48 U. S. C. § 1423a, the attorney general of Guam refused to sign contracts necessary to issue the bonds. In response, the Governor sought a declaration from the Guam Supreme Court that issuance of the bonds would not violate the Organic Act’s debt limitation. The Guam Supreme Court held that § 1423a limits Guam’s allowed indebtedness to 10 percent of the appraised valuation, not the assessed valuation, of taxable property in Guam. We granted certiorari to decide whether Guam’s debt limitation must be calculated according to the assessed or the appraised valuation of property in Guam. We hold that it must be calculated based on the assessed valuation.

I

In 2003, Guam lacked sufficient revenues to pay its obligations. To supplement revenues, the Guam Legislature authorized the Governor to issue bonds worth approximately $400 million. See Guam Pub. L. 27-019. The Governor signed the new legislation and prepared to issue the bonds. However, under Guam law, Guam’s attorney general must review and approve all government contracts prior to their execution. Guam Code Ann., Tit. 5, § 22601 (1996). The attorney general concluded that issuance of the bonds would raise the Territory’s debt above the level authorized by Guam’s Organic Act. See 48 U. S. C. § 1423a (prohibiting debt “in excess of 10 per centum of the aggregate tax valuation of the property in Guam”). He therefore refused to approve the bond contracts.

In response, the Governor sought a declaration from the Guam Supreme Court that issuance of the authorized bonds would not cause Guam’s debt to exceed the debt limitation. That determination turned, in part, on the meaning of the phrase “aggregate tax valuation” in Guam’s Organic Act. The attorney general calculated the debt limitation as 10 percent of the assessed valuation of property in Guam. But the Governor calculated the debt limitation as 10 percent of the appraised valuation. Because Guam assesses property at 35 percent of its appraised value, Guam Code Ann., Tit. 11, § 24102(f), the attorney general’s interpretation resulted in a much lower debt limit. The Guam Supreme Court agreed with the Governor and held that 48 U. S. C. § 1423a sets the debt limitation at 10 percent of the appraised valuation of property in Guam.

The attorney general filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See §1424-2 (granting Ninth Circuit jurisdiction over appeals from Guam). The Court of Appeals granted the petition in October 2003. While the appeal was pending, Congress amended § 1424-2 and removed the language that vested jurisdiction in the Ninth Circuit over appeals from Guam. See §2, 118 Stat. 2208, 48 U. S. C. § 1424-2 (2000 ed., Supp. IV). In Santos v. Guam, 436 F. 3d 1051 (Jan. 3, 2006), the Court of Appeals addressed the effect of the amendment on its jurisdiction. The court held that Congress had stripped its jurisdiction not only prospectively, but also for pending appeals. Id., at 1054. Citing Santos, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the attorney general’s appeal in this case on March 6, 2006. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 39a.

The attorney general then filed a petition for certiorari in this Court. By statute, certiorari petitions must be filed “within ninety days after the entry of . . . judgment” in a lower court. 28 U. S. C. § 2101(c). The attorney general filed his petition more than 90 days after the judgment from which he appeals — that of the Guam Supreme Court — was entered. Accordingly, when we granted certiorari in this case, 548 U. S. 942 (2006), we directed the parties to address both the question presented by petitioner and whether the filing of a petition for certiorari or the pendency of a writ of certiorari before the Court of Appeals suspended the finality of the Guam Supreme Court’s judgment for purposes of the 90-day period set out in § 2101(c).

II

Only “a genuinely final judgment” will trigger § 2101(c)’s 90-day period for filing a petition for certiorari in this Court. Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U. S. 88, 98 (2004). In most cases, the 90-day period begins to run immediately upon entry of a lower court’s judgment. In some cases, though, the actions of a party or a lower court suspend the finality of a judgment and thereby reset the 90-day “clock.” Ibid. For instance, the timely filing of a petition for rehearing with the lower court or a lower court’s appropriate decision to rehear an appeal may suspend the finality of a judgment by “rads[ing] the question whether the court will modify the judgment and alter the parties’ rights.” Ibid, (citing Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U. S. 33, 46 (1990)). So long as that question remains open, “‘there is no “judgment” to be reviewed,’” Hibbs, supra, at 98 (quoting Jenkins, supra, at 46), and §2101(c)’s 90-day period does not run.

The same reasoning applies here. In 2003, the Court of Appeals appropriately exercised discretionary jurisdiction over the attorney general’s appeal. See 48 U. S. C. § 1424-2. By granting the petition for certiorari, the Ninth Circuit raised the possibility that it might “modify the judgment” or “alter the parties’ rights.” Hibbs, supra, at 98. Thus, the Court of Appeals’ grant of certiorari suspended the finality of the Guam Supreme Court’s judgment and prevented the 90-day clock from running while the case was pending before the Court of Appeals. And until the Ninth Circuit issued its order dismissing the case, the appeal remained pending, and the finality of the judgment remained suspended.

The Governor argues that the judgment was made final earlier — either when Congress enacted the statute depriving the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction or when the Court of Appeals decided in Santos that the statute applied to pending cases. But when Congress removed the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction over appeals from Guam, it did not dismiss this appeal. Likewise, when the Ninth Circuit determined in Santos that Congress had stripped its jurisdiction over pending appeals, the court did not finally determine the rights of the parties in this case. The jurisdiction-stripping statute and Santos may have signaled the Court of Appeals’ ultimate dismissal of the appeal, but neither created a final judgment in the still-pending case. The attorney general’s appeal remained pending until the Ninth Circuit issued its dismissal order. And the pendency of the appeal continued to “raise the question whether” any further action by the court might affect the relationship of the parties. Hibbs, supra, at 98. Accordingly, we hold that the judgment of the Guam Supreme Court did not become final, for purposes of this Court’s review, until the Court of Appeals issued its order dismissing the appeal.

We emphasize that our holding is limited to the unique procedural circumstances presented here. Specifically, our holding does not extend to improperly filed appeals or filings used as delaying tactics. See Morse v. United States, 270 U. S. 151 (1926) (holding that second application for leave to file motion for new trial did not suspend the finality of the lower court’s judgment).

III

Having determined that we have jurisdiction, we turn to the merits. As always, we begin with the text of the statute. See Nebraska Dept, of Revenue v. Loewenstein, 513 U. S. 123, 128 (1994). Guam’s Organic Act states that “no public indebtedness of Guam shall be authorized or allowed in excess of 10 per centum of the aggregate tax valuation of the property in Guam.” 48 U. S. C. § 1423a. The present dispute centers on the meaning of the term “tax valuation.” In its unmodified form, the word “valuation” means “[t]he estimated worth of a thing.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1721 (4th ed. 1951) (hereinafter Black’s). But as the parties’ competing interpretations demonstrate, there are different sorts of valuations. An appraised valuation is the market value of property. See id., at 129 (defining “appraise” as “to fix and state the true value of a thing”). By contrast, an “assessed valuation” is the “[vjalue on each unit of which a prescribed amount must be paid as property taxes.” Id., at 149. These two kinds of valuation are related in practice because a property’s assessed valuation generally equals some percentage of its appraised valuation. See, e. g., Guam Code Ann., Tit. 11, § 24102(f) (defining “value” as “thirty-five per cent (35%) of the appraised value”). The assessed valuation therefore could, but typically does not, equal the market value of the property.

Though it has no established definition, the term “tax valuation” most naturally means the value to which the tax rate is applied. Were it otherwise, the modifier “tax” would have almost no meaning or a meaning inconsistent with ordinary usage. “Tax valuation” therefore means “assessed valuation” — a term consistently defined as a valuation of property for purposes of taxation. See Black’s 149; see also id., at 116 (6th ed. 1990) (defining “assessed valuation” as “[t]he worth or value of property established by taxing authorities on the basis of which the tax rate is applied”).

One would not normally refer to a property’s appraised valuation as its “tax valuation.” Appraised valuation is simply market value. And market value may or may not relate to taxation. Usually market value becomes relevant to taxation only because a specified percentage of market value is the assessed value to which taxing authorities apply the tax rate. It would strain the text to conclude that “tax valuation” means a valuation a step removed from taxation.

The Guam Supreme Court reached a contrary conclusion by interpreting the word “tax” to limit the kinds of property that qualify for inclusion in the debt-limitation calculation. But that interpretation impermissibly rearranges the statutory language. The word “tax” modifies “valuation,” not “property.” The phrase “tax valuation” therefore refers to the type of valuation to be conducted, not the object that is valued.

The Guam Supreme Court also contrasted 48 U. S. C. § 1423a’s language with explicit references to “assessed valuation” in the debt-limitation provision for the Virgin Islands. See § 1403 (“aggregate assessed valuation”). The court reasoned that, by using language in § 1423a that differed from that used in the Virgin Islands’ debt-limitation provision, Congress expressed its intent to base Guam’s debt limitation on something other than assessed value. We disagree. Certainly, Congress could have used the term “assessed valuation.” But if Congress had meant actual, market, or appraised value, it could have used any one of those terms as well. See N. W. Halsey & Co. v. Belle Plaine, 128 Iowa 467, 104 N. W. 494 (1905) (interpreting debt-limitation provision using phrase “actual value”). Or it could have left the word “valuation” unmodified: State courts interpreting other debt-limitation provisions have understood “valuation,” standing alone, to mean the market or cash value of property. See, e. g., Board of Ed., Rich Cty. School Dist. v. Passey, 122 Utah 102, 104-106, 246 P. 2d 1078, 1079 (1952). At least in this context, Congress’ rejection of “assessed” tells us no more than does its rejection of “actual” or “appraised.”

Our interpretation comports with most States’ practice of tying the debt limitations of municipalities to assessed valuation. See 15 É. McQuillin, Law of Municipal Corporations §41:7, p. 422 (3d ed. rev. 2005) (“Most of the constitutional and statutory provisions make the assessed value of the taxable property of the municipality the basis for ascertaining the amount of indebtedness which may be incurred . . . ”). States that depart from the majority approach use clear language to do so. See id., at 424-425 (“The standard is generally the assessed value of the property for taxation, rather than the actual value, where the two are different; but where the constitution or statute uses the term ‘actual value,’ such value governs rather than the taxable value” (citing N. W. Halsey & Co., supra; footnote omitted)). Congress has not used such language here. Indeed, as discussed earlier, only a strained reading of “tax valuation” would suggest a departure from the majority approach.

The Governor suggests that our interpretation would result in no debt limitation at all because Guam may arbitrarily set its assessment rate above 100 percent of market value. For two reasons, we think the Governor has overstated this concern. First, most States have long based their debt limitations on assessed value without incident. Second, a strong political check exists; property-owning voters will not fail to notice if the government sets the assessment rate above market value.

Finally, the Governor mistakenly argues that we owe deference to the Guam Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Organic Act. It may be true that we accord deference to territorial courts over matters of purely local concern. See Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U. S. 363,366 (1974) (reviewing District of Columbia Court of Appeals’ interpretation of D. C. Code provision). This case does not fit that mold, however. The debt-limitation provision protects both Guamanians and the United States from the potential consequences of territorial insolvency. Thus, this case is not a matter of purely local concern. Of course, decisions of the Supreme Court of Guam, as with other territorial courts, are instructive and are entitled to respect when they indicate how statutory issues, including the Organic Act, apply to matters of local concern. On the other hand, the Organic Act is a federal statute, which we are bound to construe according to its terms.

IV

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Guam Supreme Court and remand the case for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Souter,

with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Alito join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree that the petition for writ of certiorari was timely, and join Part II of the Court’s opinion. I disagree, however, that the phrase “tax valuation” in the Organic Act of Guam, § 11, 64 Stat. 387, as amended, 48 U. S. C. § 1423a, refers unambiguously to assessed value. If I could not go beyond statutory text and the sources relied upon by the Court, a coin toss would be my only way to judgment. But I look to congressional purpose, which points to appraised value as the meaning of the term, leaving me in respectful dissent.

The words “tax valuation” can plausibly be read in either of the ways the parties suggest: as synonymous with assessed value (the way the attorney general and the Court read them), because it is the assessed value to which the tax rate is immediately applied, Guam Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§ 24102(f), 24103 (1996), or as meaning appraised value, because the appraisal is a “valuation” for “tax” purposes. The Court concedes that the term “tax valuation” has no eanonical definition, ante, at 489, and says that the term “valuation,” standing alone, means “‘[t]he estimated worth of a thing,’ ” ibid, (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1721 (4th ed. 1951); alteration in original). Though taking property’s “estimated worth” to be its “tax valuation” would make practical sense, the Court believes that construction would read the word “tax” out of the statute. I do not see the objection, though. Even if we say “valuation” means actual value, the word “tax” has a job to do, by specifying that the valuation in question be the valuation used for tax purposes, thus ruling out an appraisal made solely for the purpose of calculating the debt limitation, with its temptation to indulge in creative accounting when money is tight. But as I said, seeing the legitimacy of this reading just leaves us with two textually plausible constructions.

I see no tie-breaker in comparing Guam’s debt limitation with those of other Territories. In each Territory mentioned by the parties, when Congress imposed a territorial debt limitation the assessed value was equal to the actual value of the property. Thus the attorney general can stress the significance of assessed value and argue that because the debt limitation in the other Territories was based on the assessed value, the same should be true for Guam. And the Governor can argue that because the debt limitation in the other Territories was based on the actual value, that should go for Guam, too. Nor is the tie to be broken by arguing that pegging the territorial debt limit to “tax valuation” suggests that this Territory was meant to be treated more conservatively than a limit turning on full value; the suggestion is balanced by the question (without any answer proposed to us), why Congress would have wished a more restrictive (or nominally more restrictive) regime for certain Territories.

Comparing state practices is no help, either. The Court says that “States that depart from the majority approach” of linking debt limitations to assessed value “use clear language to do so,” ante, at 491, but in the preceding paragraph the majority recognizes that state courts “have understood ‘valuation/ standing alone, to mean the market or cash value of property,” ante, at 490. So it seems a stretch to suggest that state laws offer a clear rule that Congress may be presumed to have understood as background; better to read the state cases as products of the specific wording of their particular limitations and the state history of property taxation. See, e. g., Phelps v. Minneapolis, 174 Minn. 509,511-514,219 N. W. 872,873-874 (1928) (relying on text of limitation, other related provisions, and history of property taxation); N. W. Halsey & Co. v. Belle Plaine, 128 Iowa 467, 470-474, 104 N. W. 494, 495-497 (1905) (same). It almost goes without saying that neither side has cited a state case involving language and background the same as Guam’s.

In sum, the congressional mind does not emerge from the words “tax valuation” or any settled construction of that phrase. Fortunately, though, the purpose of the legislation does point to a likely reading. The statute itself makes clear that what Congress meant to provide was a practical guarantee against crushing debt on the shoulders of future generations, and insolvency with the inevitable call for a bailout by Congress. See United States Nat. Bank of Ore. v. Independent Ins. Agents of America, Inc., 508 U. S. 439, 455 (1993) (“ ‘[L]ook to the [law’s]... object and policy’ ” (quoting United States v. Heirs of Boisdoré, 8 How. 113, 122 (1849))).

The attorney general claims that her reading is a better fit with these objectives because it ties the legislature’s ability to incur debt to its willingness to tax. But this is hardly so. Under the attorney general’s approach (now the Court’s), the Guam Legislature could double the debt limitation without increasing taxes by a single penny, simply by doubling the assessment rate and cutting the tax rate by half.

Although it is arguable that tying the debt ceiling to the assessed value may to some vague degree enhance legislative accountability by requiring action to raise the debt eeiling as debt piles up, I know of no independent suggestion that the debt limit was designed to operate as a political discouragement, not as a hard cap. It would, after all, have been strange for Congress to set a debt cap to constrain the Guam Legislature, only to leave the limiting figure subject to easy manipulation by the legislature. While I know that actual valuation can be manipulated, too, manipulation of that figure could only be done by officials acting in bad faith and subject to an obvious political or judicial challenge. The Court’s approach, by contrast, gives the legislature a green light to subvert its own stated limit with a clear conscience.

The more practical understanding of what must have been intended is a statute tying the debt limitation to Guam’s capacity to tax property. The actual, market value of property is the only economic index of Guam’s ability to collect property taxes to pay its bills, the only figure under consideration that is fixed in the real world, and the only figure that provides a genuine limitation. This was the figure employed or required by Congress in each of the other Territories mentioned above, see n. 3, supra, and I presume that its practical significance was in Congress’s mind when it set the debt caps for each of them. I see no reason not to attribute the same practical assessment to Congress in this instance.

I would affirm.

       At the time suit was filed, Douglas Moylan served as Guam’s attorney general. Alicia Limtiaco has since been elected to the position, and she continues the case in Moylan’s place.

       The Guam Legislature passed a law attempting to define the term “tax valuation.” See Guam Code Ann., Tit. 11, §24102/0, available at http:// www.guamcourts.org/justicedocs/index.html (as visited Mar. 16, 2007). But that term appears in Guam’s Organic Act, which is a federal statute. As the Guam Supreme Court correctly determined, Guam’s territorial legislature cannot redefine terms used in a federal statute.

       The phrase “tax valuation” had been used in debt limitations for other Territories, see ch. 34, 41 Stat. 1096 (Puerto Rico); ch. 203, 42 Stat. 599 (Philippines), but in each of those Territories the issue in this case was irrelevant because assessed and appraised values were equal. See infra this page and 494, and nn. 3-4.

       Though the Court finds the appraised value to be “a step removed from taxation,” ante, at 490, the connection of the appraised value to the tax ultimately imposed is direct enough. It is true that the tax computation requires multiplying the appraised value by two percentages (first 35 percent to get the assessed value, Guam Code Ann., Tit. 11, § 24102(f) (1996), and then the 0.25 percent tax rate, § 24103) while the assessed value must only be multiplied by a single percentage. But as a practical matter, tying the tax to the assessed value ties it to the appraised value: multiplying the appraised value by 0.0875 percent (35 percent times 0.25 percent) will give you the tax every time.

       48 U. S. C. § 1401a (“[A]ll taxes on real property in the Virgin Islands shall be computed on the basis of the actual value of such property”); Haw. Rev. Stat., ch. 98, § 1212 (1905), Lodging of Respondent (Doc. 2b) (“[A]ll real property and all personal property within the Territory shall be subject to an annual tax of one per cent, upon the full cash value of the same”); An Act to Provide Revenue for the People of Porto Rico, and for Other Purposes, Tit. I, §8 (1901), reprinted in Acts and Resolves of the First Legislative Assembly of Porto Rico 47 (1901), Lodging of Respondent (Doc. 3) (“All taxable property shall be valued and assessed at its actual market value”); A Compilation of the Acts of the Philippine Commission, Tit. 10, ch. 56, § 336(a) (1908), Lodging of Respondent (Doc. 4) (“[T]he board shall proceed to assess the value of each separate parcel of real estate and the improvements thereon, if any, at their true value in money”).

       The percentage of the valuation at which the various debt limitations were set likewise provides no basis for inferring that Congress had different intentions for different Territories. When the Organic Act of Guam was passed in 1950, each of the debt limitations in the Territories mentioned in n. 3, supra, was also set at 10 percent of the relevant valuation. See 48 U. S. C. § 1403 (Virgin Islands); 42 Stat. 116 (Hawaii); ch. 34, 41 Stat. 1096 (Puerto Rico); ch. 203, 42 Stat. 599 (Philippines).

       The specter of mischief extends to an attempt to set the assessment rate above 100 percent. The Court contends that political or practical constraints would foreclose this maneuver. See ante, at 491. After today’s decision, I suppose we may find out.

       The attorney general’s position would be strengthened if the assessment rate appeared in the Organic Act itself, for then the legislature would lack the power to change it. This state of affairs would be analogous to an assessment rate appearing in a state constitution. See, e. g., Colo. Const., Art. X, §3(l)(b); La Const., Art. VII, § 18(B). But the Organic Act set no assessment rate, leaving that up to the Guam Legislature.

       It is not, of course, the only index of Guam’s capacity to pay its bills; income taxation is an obvious source of revenue, see 48 U. S. C. §§ 1421i(a)-(b) (authorizing Guam to collect income tax).