Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States Ex Rel. Stevens Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States2000Docket #163961
146 L. Ed. 2d 836 120 S. Ct. 1858 529 U.S. 765 2000 U.S. LEXIS 3428 16 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 417 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3975 2000 Daily Journal DAR 5319 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 336 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2799 68 U.S.L.W. 4399 50 ERC (BNA) 1545 Federal Courts Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A private citizen sued a Vermont state agency under the False Claims Act. The Supreme Court held that while the citizen had standing as a partial assignee of the U.S. government’s claim, the Act’s term “person” does not include states, thus barring the suit.

Legal Significance: Established that qui tam relators have Article III standing based on a partial assignment theory, but shielded states from such suits by holding they are not “persons” under the False Claims Act, thereby avoiding a direct Eleventh Amendment ruling.

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States Ex Rel. Stevens Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Respondent Jonathan Stevens, a former employee of the petitioner, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA). Stevens alleged that the agency submitted false claims to the Environmental Protection Agency by overstating the hours its employees worked on federally funded projects. The United States, the real party in interest, declined to intervene in the case. The Vermont agency moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that a state agency is not a “person” subject to liability under the FCA. The agency also asserted that the Eleventh Amendment barred a private individual from suing a state in federal court. The District Court denied the motion, and the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that states were “persons” under the FCA and that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the suit because the United States was the real party in interest. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve both the standing and statutory questions.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does the False Claims Act authorize a private individual to bring a qui tam action against a State or state agency in federal court, and if so, does such an individual have Article III standing?

The Court held that a private individual has standing to bring a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does the False Claims Act authorize a private individual to bring a qui tam action against a State or state agency in federal court, and if so, does such an individual have Article III standing?

Conclusion

This case solidifies the constitutional basis for *qui tam* actions through an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo

Legal Rule

A private individual, as a partial assignee of the United States' claim, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate

Legal Analysis

The Court first addressed the threshold jurisdictional question of Article III standing. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate ve

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A private qui tam relator has Article III standing to sue
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit e

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Justice is truth in action.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+