Amicus Curiae Briefs

Attorneys affiliated with the NWC have written and filed numerous Amicus Curiae briefs in precedent-setting cases around the country.

Since the landmark 1985 Kansas Gas & Electric brief that helped to convince the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to protect whistleblowers who report internally, the attorneys associated with the NWC have written and filed numerous Amicus Curiae briefs in precedent-setting cases around the country.

These “Friend of the Court” briefs are absolutely essential because they allow the NWC to use its over 100 years of combined legal experience representing whistleblowers to frame issues for the court and ensure that they follow the law to protect whistleblowers.

Below is a selection of court decisions and Amicus Curiae briefs submitted by attorneys associated with the NWC. Please contact us if you are an attorney in need of assistance or if you are interested in helping to write Amicus briefs to support whistleblowers nationwide.

King v. Department of the Air Force

In King v. Department of the Air Force, the Merit Systems Protection Board narrowly construed "consequential damages" under the Whistleblower Protection Act, limiting recovery to out-of-pocket expenses and reversing a $64,949 award for a compromised VA loan stemming from the appellant's whistleblower reprisal.

Nicholas Tides, et al v. The Boeing Company

In Tides v. The Boeing Co., the Ninth Circuit held that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's whistleblower provision protects employee disclosures only to the three categories of recipients enumerated in the statute—federal agencies, Congress, and supervisors—and does not extend protection to disclosures made to the media.

Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter

In KBR v. United States ex rel. Carter, the Supreme Court held that the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act applies only to criminal offenses and not civil claims, and that the False Claims Act's first-to-file bar ceases to apply once a related earlier action is dismissed.

Lane v. Franks

In Lane v. Franks, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a public employee's truthful sworn testimony, compelled by subpoena and outside the scope of his ordinary job duties, constitutes citizen speech on a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment.

FAA v. Cooper

In FAA v. Cooper, the Supreme Court held that the Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress, limiting "actual damages" to proven pecuniary harm under the sovereign immunity canon.

Doe v. Chao

In Doe v. Chao, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs must prove some actual damages in order to qualify for the Privacy Act's minimum statutory award of $1,000, rejecting the argument that proof of a statutory violation alone is sufficient.

Hampton Dellinger v. Scott Bessent

In Hampton Dellinger v. Scott Bessent, former Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger sued in response to his abrupt termination, arguing the move violated his for-cause removal protections and undermined the independence of the Office of Special Counsel.

Murray v. UBS

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.

Lindsey Gulden and Damian Burch v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

In Lindsey Gulden and Damian Burch v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, the court decided whether a district court has the jurisdiction under the SOX Act to enforce the preliminary reinstatement of whistleblowers as ordered by the Department of Labor.

Lissack v. Commissioner

In Lissack v. Commissioner, an IRS whistleblower who spoke out against millions in wrongfully reported tax deductions appealed their IRS award denial to the Circuit Court.

Nathan Van Buren v. United States

In Nathan Van Buren v. United States, the court weighed in on the interpretation of the phrase "to exceed authorized access," a decision which had major implications for the enforcement of whistleblower retaliation protections.

Jerud Butler v. Board of County Commissioners for San Miguel County

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.

Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt

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.

Eller v. Idaho State Police

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.

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers

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.

Universal Health Services v. United States, ex rel. Escobar

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).

Genberg v. Porter

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.

Darin Jones v. Dept. of Justice

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.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby

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.

Day v. Dept. of Homeland Security

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.

Wiest v. Lynch

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

Lawson v. FMR LLC

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.

English v. General Electric Company

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.

Sylvester v. Parexel International

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).

Haddle v. Garrison

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.

EEOC v. Waffle House

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

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States

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.

Beck v. Belezza et al.

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.

Mann v. Heckler & Koch Defense

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.

Stone v. Instrumentation Laboratory Company

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.

Powers v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

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.”

Parkinson v. Dept. of Justice

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.”

Kalyanaram v. New York Institute of Technology

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.

Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hospital

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.

Taylor v. Sturgell

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".

Villanueva v. Core Laboratories

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

Schroeder v. Greater New Orleans Federal Credit Union

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.

Northover v. Archuleta, Berry v. Conyers

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.

Insigna v. IRS

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.

Kansas Gas & Electric v. Brock

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

Evans v. EPA

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”).