Riley v. St Luke's Epis Hosp
2001 WL 568727, 252 F.3d 749 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA), which permit a private citizen (relator) to litigate a claim of fraud against the United States in the government's name even when the government declines to intervene, do not violate the separation of powers doctrine under Article II's Take Care or Appointments Clauses because the Executive Branch retains sufficient control over the litigation.
Facts:
- Joyce Riley, a former nurse at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, became aware of conduct she believed constituted fraud against the United States Treasury.
- Riley filed a lawsuit under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act against St. Luke's and seven other defendants.
- The lawsuit alleged that the defendants had defrauded and conspired to defraud the United States government.
- The United States government was notified of the lawsuit as required by the FCA.
- After reviewing the case, the government exercised its right not to intervene in the action.
- Despite the government's declination, Riley proceeded with the lawsuit on her own, as permitted by the statute.
Procedural Posture:
- Joyce Riley sued St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, a federal trial court.
- The United States government declined to intervene in the action.
- The district court dismissed Riley's lawsuit, holding that the FCA's qui tam provisions were unconstitutional.
- Riley (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the statute violated the Take Care Clause.
- The United States intervened in the appeal to defend the statute's constitutionality.
- The Fifth Circuit granted a petition to rehear the case en banc, vacating the panel's opinion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow a private citizen to pursue a lawsuit on behalf of the United States even when the government chooses not to intervene, violate the constitutional separation of powers doctrine under Article II's Take Care and Appointments Clauses?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart
No. The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act do not violate the separation of powers under Article II. The long history of qui tam actions in England and the United States, which the Supreme Court found conclusive on the Article III standing issue in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. Stevens, is similarly persuasive here. The provisions do not violate the Take Care Clause because the Executive Branch retains significant control over the litigation, even when it does not intervene. This control includes the ability to intervene later for good cause, the unilateral power to dismiss the action (subject to a hearing for the relator), the power to settle the case over the relator's objection with court approval, and the right to the majority of any proceeds. The court distinguished this case from Morrison v. Olson, reasoning that a qui tam relator is a civil litigant, not a criminal prosecutor like an independent counsel, and thus does not require the same level of executive control. Furthermore, the provisions do not violate the Appointments Clause because relators are not 'officers of the United States,' as they lack the continuing and formalized employment relationship with the government that characterizes an officer.
Dissenting - Smith
Yes. Allowing a private relator to pursue a False Claims Act lawsuit when the government declines to intervene violates both the Take Care Clause and the Appointments Clause of Article II. The FCA unconstitutionally strips the Executive of its core function of prosecutorial discretion by allowing a private, self-interested party to initiate and conduct litigation on behalf of the United States. The control mechanisms cited by the majority are insufficient because the Executive cannot unilaterally decide to initiate or terminate the litigation; it must seek court approval to dismiss or settle a case over a relator's objections. The dissent argues that Morrison v. Olson provides the correct analytical framework, and the FCA fails that test because the Executive lacks the power to remove the relator or control the initiation and scope of the suit. Additionally, the Appointments Clause is violated because, under Buckley v. Valeo, any person exercising significant authority by litigating on behalf of the United States must be an 'Officer of the United States,' properly appointed under Article II. A relator performs this function without having been appointed.
Analysis:
This en banc decision reversed the panel opinion and aligned the Fifth Circuit with other federal circuits, solidifying the constitutionality of the False Claims Act's qui tam provisions. The ruling affirms that Congress can empower private citizens to enforce public laws so long as the Executive Branch retains ultimate control over the litigation. This preserves the FCA as a critical tool for combating government fraud, ensuring that whistleblower lawsuits can proceed even when the Department of Justice declines to intervene, thereby increasing the scope of potential enforcement against fraudulent actors.
Unlock the full brief for Riley v. St Luke's Epis Hosp