To bring a lawsuit, a plaintiff must, before all else, demonstrate standing under the Constitution. Article III requires a plaintiff have “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). Lujan and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions have clarified that cause-oriented organizations get no shortcuts; they must meet roughly the same standing requirements as individuals to bring lawsuits in federal court. A recent U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decision, Environmental Working Group et al. v. Food and Drug Administration, exactingly applied those requirements to deny two environmental groups standing to sue, while at the same time signaling that D.C. Circuit organizational standing precedents should perhaps be reconsidered. Continue reading “No Matter the Cause, “Public Interest” Groups Merit No Shortcuts on Standing to Sue”
Fried Frank Of Counsel and author of the leading False Claims Act treatise, John T. Boese (on left), and his partner Douglas W. Baruch, offered insightful analysis on two recent Department of Justice policy documents (the “Granston Memo” and the “Brand Memo”) and their impact on FCA actions by both qui tam relators and federal prosecutors.
The slide presentation Boese and Baruch followed can be downloaded here.
The speakers also authored a February 2018 Working Paper for WLF on three new possible constitutional challenges to the FCA’s qui tam provisions, which can be found here.