The higher Appointments Clause study, inside our consider, is the fact of the courtroom into the
The newest Records out of Alexander Hamilton
13 We believe local hookup app Lancaster PA that You ex boyfriend rel. Kelly v. Boeing Co., 9 F.3d 743, 757-59 (9th Cir. 1993) (rejecting Appointments Clause challenge to False Claims Act), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1125 (1994), reached the correct result but through an incorrect line of analysis. Discover id. at 758 (Clause not violated because of the relative modesty of the authority exercised by the relator). All of us ex rel. Burch v. Piqua Technologies, Inc., 803 F. Supp. 115 (S.D. Ohio 1992), which held that « because qui tam relators are not officers of the United States, the FCA does not violate the Appointments Clause. » Id. at 120. We disapprove the Appointments Clause analysis and conclusion of an earlier memorandum of this Office, Constitutionality of the Qui Tam Provisions of the False Claims Act, 13 Op. O.L.C. 249 (1989) (preliminary print) (arguing that the qui tam provisions violate the Appointments Clause).
14 Here, the court phrased its analysis in terms of separation of powers, but the challenge to the statute was, at its core, based on the Appointments Clause. See Chesapeake Bay Discovered. v. Bethlehem Material Corp., 652 F. Supp. 620, 624 (D. Md. 1987) (Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), « does not stand for the proposition . . . that private persons may not enforce any federal laws simply because they are not Officers of the United States appointed in accordance with Article II of the Constitution »).
15 At least where these entities are created on an ad hoc or temporary basis, there is a long historical pedigree for the argument that even the United States representatives need not be appointed in accordance with Article II. Select, e.g., Alexander Hamilton, New Defence No. 37 (Jan. 6, 1796), reprinted inside the 20 13, 20 (Harold C. (suite…)
Read More »