## Facts

- Joyce Riley, a former nurse at St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital, filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), alleging defendants submitted false Medicare and CHAMPUS claims for unnecessary services or services not performed by a licensed physician.
- The United States declined to intervene at the outset under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(4)(B).
- The district court dismissed the action on standing grounds.
- A Fifth Circuit panel concluded Riley had Article III standing but held non-intervened FCA qui tam actions unconstitutional under separation-of-powers principles.
- The Fifth Circuit granted rehearing en banc, with the United States intervening to defend the FCA’s qui tam provisions, and considered the case in light of intervening Supreme Court guidance on qui tam standing.

## Issues

1. Whether FCA qui tam actions may proceed constitutionally when the United States declines to intervene, consistent with Article II’s Take Care Clause and Appointments Clause.
2. Whether authorizing private relators to litigate fraud claims in the United States’ name impermissibly intrudes on executive law-enforcement authority.

## Decision

- The en banc Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the FCA’s qui tam provisions, including suits pursued after the United States declines to intervene, do not violate separation of powers, the Take Care Clause, or the Appointments Clause.
- The court relied on (i) the long historical acceptance of qui tam enforcement in English and early American practice, (ii) the relator’s status as suing on a partially assigned government claim, and (iii) statutory mechanisms preserving substantial executive control.

## Legal Principles

- FCA qui tam standing is supported by the relator’s pursuit of a partially assigned damages claim belonging to the United States, with the United States remaining the real party in interest.
- The Take Care Clause is satisfied where the statutory scheme preserves meaningful executive supervision and control over the litigation, including the ability to:
  - intervene at the outset or later upon a showing of good cause;
  - assume primary responsibility for the action after intervening;
  - dismiss the action despite relator objection (subject to notice and a hearing);
  - settle the action despite relator objection if judicially approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable; and
  - limit relator participation to prevent interference with the government’s prosecution.
- Qui tam relators are not “officers of the United States” for Appointments Clause purposes when they litigate as private parties under a statutory assignment rather than holding a federal office or employment.

## Conclusion

The en banc Fifth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of FCA qui tam suits even when the United States initially declines to intervene, emphasizing historical acceptance and the Act’s retained executive controls, and it reinstated the action for further proceedings in the district court.


United States ex rel. Riley v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 252 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc)