Could what started with a footnote end with the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions being declared unconstitutional? Probably not, but the Supreme Court was interested enough to order responses to a recent certiorari petition challenging the FCA’s constitutionality. In Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000), the Supreme Court held that an FCA relator has standing to sue on the United States’ behalf, but, in a footnote, the Court remarked that it was “express[ing] no view on the question whether qui tam suits violate” the Article II Appointments Clause. As we have previously written, Attorney General William Barr has previously stated on multiple occasions that the FCA’s qui tam provisions violate the Appointments Clause. While Attorney General Barr walked back those comments, a certiorari petition filed in January 2019 in Intermountain Health Care, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Polukoff asked the Supreme Court to consider the question. The relator and the Solicitor General declined to file responses and few expected the petition to gain much traction, so it was somewhat surprising when the Supreme Court ordered responses to the petition. Those responses were filed last week.
Regulations, Compliance, & Enforcement
Trending Now
FAR 52.222-90 Explained: New Clause May Result in 6,825 Audits Per Year • DOJ Stands Up a New Fraud-Fighting Division: What Government Contractors Need to Know About the National Fraud Enforcement Division • FAR Updates Trade Agreement Act Thresholds • GE’s $36 Million ITAR Penalty — A Wake-Up Call for Export Control Compliance • Treasury Canceled Booz Contracts Over Vetting of IRS Leaker, Bessent Says
Appointment Cancelled? Supreme Court Asked to Consider Constitutionality of FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions Under the Appointments Clause
Track False Claims Act cases, audit trends, and compliance best practices with our Compliance & Enforcement newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.