Time to Challenge Whistleblower Law?
Writing for Washington Legal Foundation, two Fried, Frank attorneys say the time may be right to look again at constitutionality of the False Claims Act’s (FCA) qui tam (relator or whistleblower) provisions that allow a whistleblower to independently prosecute a False Claims Act case on behalf of the United States and to be awarded up to 30% of any government recovery based on the whistleblower’s claims. The attorneys say that interest in challenging the constitutionality of the provision waned following a 2000 Supreme Court decision in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens. In that decision, the court unanimously held that whistleblowers have Article 3 standing, even though they suffer no injury themselves, because they are “assignees” of a portion of the government’s FCA claim, they say.
The attorneys note that in recent years, court decisions have questioned the wisdom of qui tam enforcement, at least in many circumstances where the interests of the qui tam relator conflict directly with the interests of the executive branch and the public interest. “These opinions may form a basis for courts to revisit the constitutionality of this private enforcement of the government’s rights and remedies …,” the attorneys write.