{
  "id": "RL30463",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30463",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101798,
      "date": "2000-03-08",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:38:22.474941",
      "title": "Constitutional Aspects of Qui Tam Actions: Background and Analysis of Issues in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens",
      "summary": "The False Claims Act (FCA), originally enacted in 1863, serves as an important mechanism by\nwhich fraud against the federal government is combated. The Act authorizes both the Attorney\nGeneral and private persons to bring civil actions for its enforcement. Under the terms of the Act,\na private individual, known as a relator, may bring such an action on behalf of him or herself, and\nfor the United States Government. These actions are known as qui tam suits, and their use dates back\nto the Thirteenth Century in England as well as the earliest days of the United States.\n  The vast majority of these suits are brought against private entities who are alleged to have\ncommitted acts of fraud upon the federal government through the submission of false claims, and\ntheir validity has been well established. However, qui tam suits have also been brought against states,\nraising significant constitutional and statutory questions regarding the proper scope of the Act.\nSpecifically, it has been argued that such actions are impermissible, as states do not constitute\n\"persons\" who may be sued under the Act. More substantively, it has also been asserted that suits\nby private relators against a state violate the Eleventh Amendment. The Court of Appeals for the\nSecond Circuit addressed these issues in  United States ex rel. Stevens v. Vermont Agency of\nNatural\nResources , holding that states are indeed within the ambit of the False Claims Act, and that\nthe\nUnited States is the \"real party in interest\" in a qui tam action, alleviating any Eleventh Amendment\nconcerns.\n  Given the significance of these questions as they relate to state qui tam liability, the Supreme\nCourt granted certiorari in  Stevens . While the Second Circuit's decision is based on\nwidely accepted\nprinciples supporting the historical role of qui tam actions, it is possible that the Supreme Court will\nreverse the decision of the Second Circuit. Depending on the factors found persuasive by the Court,\na reversal could have substantial implications for qui tam litigation in general. Specifically, a ruling\nby the Court that states are not persons under the Act would bar any such action against a state that\nhas committed fraud, irrespective of whether it is brought by the federal government or a private\nrelator. A reversal on the Eleventh Amendment issue, however, would only proscribe suits brought\nby relators where the government chooses not to intervene. Further complicating matters, the\nSupreme Court, ten days prior to oral argument in  Stevens , issued an order indicating\nthat it would\nalso consider whether qui tam suits violate the standing requirements of Article III of the\nConstitution. \n  While the questions being addressed by the Court have the potential to greatly impact the False\nClaims Act, it is unclear whether any change will occur. Indeed, in light of the centuries long history\nof qui tam actions and the extensive lower court precedent in its favor, it is questionable whether the\nCourt will radically alter the qui tam landscape.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30463",
          "sha1": "0a41471e2c98aa052fb43744b9352b73efe58048",
          "filename": "files/20000308_RL30463_0a41471e2c98aa052fb43744b9352b73efe58048.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20000308_RL30463_0a41471e2c98aa052fb43744b9352b73efe58048.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}