In a series of what we entitled “reports from the front,” we discussed how the federal government asserted, and eventually won, the right to intervene in ongoing False Claims Act suits to seek their dismissal notwithstanding the objections of the “relators” who were ostensibly pursuing these actions in the government’s name. Basically, the relators claimed that, unless the government exercised its initial right to take over an FCA suit early on, the government lost all control over the relators, and they could essentially run wild using the government’s name. The Supreme Court rightfully rejected that view. United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 599 U.S. 419, 437-38 (2023) (government entitled to intervene and obtain dismissal of FCA action at any time on the basis of any “reasonable argument” regardless of the relator’s position).
However, three justices had more to add – they challenged that entire FCA private-attorney-general system as unconstitutional. Justice Thomas stated in dissent:
The FCA’s qui tam provisions have long inhabited something of a constitutional twilight zone. There are substantial arguments that the qui tam device is inconsistent with Article II and that private relators may not represent the interests of the United States in litigation. . . . [T]he Court has held that conducting civil litigation for vindicating public rights of the United States is an executive function that may be discharged only by persons who are Officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause. A private relator under the FCA, however, is not appointed as an officer of the United States under Article II. It thus appears to follow that Congress cannot authorize a private relator to wield executive authority to represent the United States’ interests in civil litigation. The potential inconsistency of qui tam suits with Article II has been noticed for decades.
Polansky, 599 U.S. at 449-50 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Concurring Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett agreed. “I add only that I agree with Justice Thomas that “[t]here are substantial arguments that the qui tam device is inconsistent with Article II and that private relators may not represent the interests of the United States in litigation.” Id. at 442 (concurring opinion).
Thus, we commented that “another front opens.”Continue Reading FCA Frontal Assault in Eleventh Circuit