No. 2011-1067
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUITFLFMC, LLC,Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHAM-O, INC.,Defendant-Appellee, v.UNITED STATES,Intervenor. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western Districtof Pennsylvania in case no. 10-CV-0435, Judge Arthur J. SchwabBRIEF FOR THE INTERVENOR UNITED STATESTONY WESTAssistant Attorney GeneralMICHAEL F. HERTZDeputy Assistant Attorney GeneralDOUGLAS N. LETTER (202) 514-3602Appellate Litigation CounselCivil Division, Room 7513Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20530
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.......................1 ARGUMENT................................................................................................................7I.THE PURPOSE AND HISTORY OF THE GOVERNINGSTATUTORY SCHEME IN SECTION 292 STRONGLY SUPPORT ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY.............................................8 A.
Qui Tam
Provisions Like Section 292(b) Have aSterling Pedigree in the Law of the United States.......................9B.The History of
Qui Tam
Statutes in the United StatesConfirms the Constitutionality of Section 292(b).....................16II.THE
QUI TAM
MECHANISM IN SECTION 292 DOESNOT FACIALLY VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF POWERS PRINCIPLES.......................................23 A.History and Practice Demonstrate that Section 292(b)Does Not Prevent the President from AccomplishingHis Constitutionally Assigned Functions...................................24B.Section 292(b) Does Not Impermissibly Interfere with the President's Duties..........................................................29C.
Morrison
is Readily Distinguishable.............................................45D.The Facial Constitutionality of Section 292(b) isNot Squarely Presented...............................................................48III.THE
QUI TAM
MECHANISM IN SECTION 292(b) DOESNOT VIOLATE THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE...........................51CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................56
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICECERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
ii
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
