Page:U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources.pdf/7

Rh And the injury they assert is exclusively to the Government. A qui tam suit, this Court has explained, alleges both an “injury to the [Government’s] sovereignty arising from violation of its laws” and an injury to its “proprietary [interests] resulting from [a] fraud.” Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. ''United States ex rel. Stevens'', 529 U. S. 765, 771 (2000). But in one important sense, a qui tam suit is, as the statute puts it, “for” both the relator and the Government. §3730(b)(1) (describing the action as “for the person and for the United States”). The FCA, we have explained, “effect[s] a partial assignment of the Government’s” own damages claim. Id., at 773. If the action leads to a recovery, the relator may receive up to 30% of the total. See §§§ [sic]3730(d)(1)–(2).

Because the relator is no ordinary civil plaintiff, he is immediately subject to special restrictions. He must file his complaint under seal, and serve both “[a] copy” and supporting “material evidence” on the Government alone. §3730(b)(2). The Government then has 60 days (often extended for “good cause”) to decide whether to “intervene and proceed with the action.” §§§ [sic]3730(b)(2)–(3). If the Government, during that so-called seal period, elects to intervene, the relator loses control: The action then “shall be conducted by the Government,” though the relator can continue as a party in a secondary role. §§§ [sic]3730(b)(4)(A), (c)(1). Only if the Government passes on intervention does the relator “have the right to conduct the action.” §3730(b)(4)(B).

And even then, the relator is not home free. The Government, after all, is a “real party in interest” in a qui tam action. ''United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York'', 556 U. S. 928, 930 (2009). So Congress gave the Government continuing rights in the action—not least the right to