Christopher Martin’s Post

View profile for Christopher Martin, graphic

Pirate-Captain | DEEP6 DIVERS UNION CORP | 🏴☠️ President-Chaplain | DEEP6DIVERS.ORG | 🇺🇸

Analyzing that question, the court first found that qui tam relators are “Officers of the United States” because: (1) relators exercise significant authority by possessing civil enforcement authority on behalf of the United States; and (2) relators occupy a “continuing position” established by law given that the FCA prescribes their statutory duties, powers, and compensation and the position is analogous to other temporary officials that wield core executive power, such as bank receivers and special prosecutors. Second, the court found that Article II of the US Constitution contains no qui tam exception, rejecting arguments that historical practice confirms the qui tam provisions’ constitutionality. The court stated that “[w]hen the Constitution is clear, no amount of countervailing history overcomes what the States ratified.” Third, the court found that because a relator is an Officer, the relator must be appointed by the president, the head of an executive department, or a court. Because relators are self-appointed by initiating their own FCA actions, the court held that the qui tam provisions violate the Appointments Clause and dismissed the action.

Is It the End of the False Claims Act As We Know It? District Court Rules Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional

Is It the End of the False Claims Act As We Know It? District Court Rules Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional

klgates.com

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics