| Description |
Part I of this Comment briefly reviews the FCA by describing its historical context and by outlining the relevant statutory provisions. Part II discusses the disagreement among the federal courts on the issues of whether a qui tam relator has Article III standing, whether a state is a “person subject to suit and liability under the FCA, and whether states can assert Eleventh Amendment immunity to bar a suit by a private qui tam plaintiff. Part III reviews the history of the case at the district court and court of appeals levels. Part IV presents the parties’ arguments in the case that finally put these issues before the U.S. Supreme Court, Vermont Agency of Natural resources .v United States ex rel. Stevens. Part V discusses the Supreme Court’s decision. Finally, Part VI analyzes the Supreme Court’s holdings, discussing the implications for the future of qui tam litigation. (Description from Source) |