Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 1 Stat. 80). However, legislation “passed by the First Congress assembled under the Constitution, many of whose members had taken part in framing that instrument ... is contemporaneous and weighty evidence of its true meaning.” Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297, 8 S.Ct. 1370, 32 L.Ed. 239 (1888), overruled in part on other grounds by Milwaukee County v. M.E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S.Ct. 229, 80 L.Ed. 220 (1935). The long history of qui tam actions strongly supports a finding of their constitutionality. Second, it is not necessary for § 292(b) to meet the demanding standard applied by the Supreme Court in Morrison to withstand an Article II challenge, given that the intrusion of § 292(b) into Executive Branch power is minor in comparison. See Riley, 252 F.3d at 755 (<HOLDING>). A qui tam relator under § 292(b) pursues a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the morrison control test  is simply not dispositive of a challenge to the fca as it involves an entirely different lawsuit and requires entirely different control mechanisms (B) holding that an arbitrator was not bound by an earlier award involving a different contract and different union (C) recognizing that enhancement requires control over a participant in the scheme not only control over the scheme itself (D) holding a defendant is liable as a control person if the defendant had the power to control the general affairs of the entity primarily liable at the time the entity violated the securities laws but declining to decide whether power to control means simply abstract power to control or actual exercise of the power to control internal quotations omitted (E) holding authority to control limits duty to control
Output (English): holding that an arbitrator was not bound by an earlier award involving a different contract and different union