Florida Federal Court Finds FCA Relator Unconstitutionally Appointed
A federal judge in the Middle District of Florida recently dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) case holding, among other things, that the relator was not properly appointed as an officer under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and thus had no authority to bring the case.
The False Claims Act allows any person (called a “relator”) to bring suit on behalf of the United States against private parties for allegedly submitting fraudulent claims for payment to the United States or withholding payments owed to the United States. The government can choose to intervene and litigate the case itself, or it can decline to intervene, allowing the relator to control the litigation. In this case, the government declined to intervene.
The district court found that the relator met the two-prong definition of an “officer” that can only be appointed as provided for in the U.S. Constitution. Under that definition, an officer “exercises significant authority pursuant to the laws of the Untied States” and “occupies a continuing position established by law.” The judge found that the relator exercised significant authority through such actions as: (i) enforcing public law; (ii) initiating penalties against private parties; and (iii) here, because the government did not intervene, prosecuting an action, including the ability to decide whether to appeal. And the judge found that the relator occupied a continuing position due to, in part, her statutory duties, powers, and emoluments, as created under the FCA.
Because the relator met the definition of “officer,” it was necessary for her to have been properly appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause. The relator was not properly appointed to her office because she was self-appointed, rather than appointed by the President, the head of an executive department, or a court. Thus, the relator did not have the authority to prosecute the action. The district court therefore dismissed the case with prejudice.
