Another dumb ■■■■ decision which will cripple a vital tool of the Federal Government to combat fraud.
No, Judge Mizelle, qui tam plaintiffs are NOT Officers of the United States, not even ■■■■■■■ close. They are simply private citizens who have been granted standing by the Federal Government to bring civil suits against people or businesses that are committing fraud against the United States, in return for as high as a 30% share of the money recovered, though the share is typically much lower.
At least $48 Billion has been recovered from crooked individuals and businesses for the government by these types of suits.
Link to Opinion of the Court.
Hopefully there are 5 votes on the Supreme Court to reverse this stupidity and maintain this valuable tool to combat fraud.
When corrupt individuals steal from the government, they are stealing from YOU.
I pay taxes and I want the government to use every tool at its disposal to recover fraud when it occurs.
And as for the comment about why do we have a Justice Department.
The Justice Department does not have anywhere CLOSE to the resources it needs to track down all cases of waste and abuse.
That is the genius of qui tam. It provides the government the whole body of the citizenry as potential plaintiffs.
Yes, plaintiffs get to keep a portion, but otherwise, the Federal Government would not get ANY of that money back. This way, they get AT LEAST 2/3rds back and usually well more.
The judge is right. Maybe it makes it harder on the government. Much better that than people appointing themselves to be federal prosecutors. Whatever they get, it’s not worth it. We have a constitution, the constitution has an appointments clause, it does not include Joe Schmoe appointing himself and the government saying, yeah sure, why not. One person can’t sue on behalf of someone else, that is well established in law. Why should it be different for the government?
But the sheer lunacy of trying to equate standing for a qui tam plaintiff with being an Officer of the United States is what makes this decision stand out.
Obviously, a qui tam plaintiff is not a principal officer. Principal Officers are heads of departments or independent agencies, Article III Federal Judges and the very limited number of other individuals who hold great discretionary power in the executive branch.
A qui tam plaintiff has no discretionary power, just standing to bring a lawsuit.
But is a qui tam plaintiff an inferior officer? Again, no. Inferior Officers are subject to the jurisdiction of Principal Officers and while they don’t hold the level of discretionary power that a Principal Officer holds, they still have a significant degree of discretionary power. Qui tam plaintiffs are not subject to the jurisdiction of a principal officer, nor do they exercise any degree of discretionary power.
At best, and even this is a stretch, a qui tam plaintiff could be considered an employee of the United States, while engaged in the lawsuit. But employees of the United States are NOT subject to the Appointments Clause and thus there is no Constitutional issue.
But there is no way, other than contorting one’s self into knots with fringe legal theories, that one could possibly reach the conclusion that a qui tam plaintiff is an Officer of the United States, either Principal or Inferior.
self appointed special prosecutors. I see no constitutional provision that would allow anyone to appoint and hire themselves to represent the US essentially as an AUSA. Nor do I see any provisions in the law that would allow the DoJ to contract outside lawyers or hire contract workers. One party cannot sue on behalf of another, this is well established in law. As soon as they are given standing they become agents of the state, subject to the requirements of the state, self-appointment does not meet those requirements.
