Page:U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu.pdf/9

6 similarly stated that “[w]e may have some issues with U&C” and that “if you [match a] price offer, that becomes your usual and customary [price] for that day.” 30 F. 4th 649, 667 (CA7 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). Other documents directed Safeway’s employees to match Walmart prices, but cautioned that employees should not “put any of this in writing to stores because our official policy is we do not match.” Id., at 666. Petitioners argue that this and other evidence show that respondents thought that their claims were inaccurate yet submitted them anyway.

Before proceeding, some context about how these cases reached us is useful to understand the question presented. The FCA (as relevant here) imposes liability on those who “knowingly presen[t] … a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.” §3729(a)(1)(A). Thus, two essential elements of an FCA violation are (1) the falsity of the claim and (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the claim’s falsity.

In SuperValu’s case, the District Court ruled against SuperValu on the falsity element—it determined that SuperValu’s discounted prices were its “usual and customary” prices and that, by not reporting them, SuperValu submitted claims that were false. But, the District Court then granted summary judgment for SuperValu based on the scienter element, holding SuperValu could not have acted “knowingly.” Soon after, it granted Safeway summary judgment on the same basis.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed. 9 F. 4th 455 (2021). In doing so, it relied heavily on ''Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U. S. 47 (2007)—a case that interpreted the term “ ‘willfully’ ” in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), id.'', at 52. Specifically, the Seventh Circuit read Safeco to dictate a two-step inquiry for ascertaining whether a defendant acted recklessly or knowingly. At step one, the Seventh