In a February 3, 2015 decision, United States v. Graham Co. Soil & Water Conservation Dist., the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the government's internal awareness of information does not qualify as a public disclosure that would bar a private citizen (known as a relator) from bringing claims against a third party under the False Claims Act (FCA) (, No. 13-2345 (4th Cir. Feb. 3, 2015)).

The relator in this matter, Karen Wilson, worked as a secretary at the Graham County (North Carolina) Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD), a local government entity. The SWCD obtained federal government funding to help recover after a natural disaster. In 1995, Wilson became aware of improprieties involving the use of these funds. Over the next two years, she communicated twice with special agents of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) about her concerns. In 1996, Graham County produced an audit report detailing several problems with SWCD's handling of the federal program's fund, and sent the report to a limited distribution list of federal, state and local officials. In 1997, a USDA report also concluded that there had been misdeeds, and circulated its report to a limited distribution list of federal and state law enforcement agencies, bearing a warning that it was not for external distribution.

In 2001, Wilson filed suit under the qui tam provision of the FCA, alleging that fraudulent invoices had been submitted to the federal government under programs operated by the SWCD. The qui tam provision FCA enables a private citizen to bring suit on behalf of the United States against those who have made fraudulent claims for payment to the United States. However, an earlier version of the FCA applicable to this case contained a provision stripping jurisdiction from courts where the relator's claims are based on a public disclosure.

After years of litigation, the district court dismissed Wilson's suit. Relying on precedent from the Seventh Circuit, the district court held that the information upon which Wilson had based her action had been "publicly disclosed," since both the county's report and the USDA's report had been disclosed to public officials with relevant oversight, and that she therefore lacked standing to bring the action. Wilson appealed.

The Fourth Circuit reversed. The court held that public disclosure does not include the government's own internal awareness of the information, and only extends to information that has entered the public domain. Since neither the county report nor the USDA report was distributed to nor intended for the public, neither report fell into the public domain. Wilson therefore maintained standing to bring the action. The Fourth Circuit acknowledged that although it reached a different conclusion than the Seventh Circuit on this issue, its opinion is consistent with decisions reached by the Federal, First, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits.