Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 852

529US3

Unit: $U59

[09-26-01 12:32:42] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 765 (2000)

777

Opinion of the Court

provided both a bounty and an express cause of action; 6
others provided a bounty only.7

We think this history well nigh conclusive with respect to
the question before us here: whether qui tam actions were
“cases and controversies of the sort traditionally amena-
ble to, and resolved by, the judicial process.” Steel Co., 523

6 See Act of Mar. 1, 1790, ch. 2, § 3, 1 Stat. 102 (allowing informer to sue
for, and receive half of ﬁne for, failure to ﬁle census return); Act of July 5,
1790, ch. 25, § 1, 1 Stat. 129 (extending same to Rhode Island); Act of July
20, 1790, ch. 29, §§ 1, 4, 1 Stat. 131, 133 (allowing private individual to
sue for, and receive half of ﬁne for, carriage of seamen without contract
or illegal harboring of runaway seamen); Act of July 22, 1790, ch. 33, § 3,
1 Stat. 137–138 (allowing private individual to sue for, and receive half of
goods forfeited for, unlicensed trading with Indian tribes); Act of Mar. 3,
1791, ch. 15, § 44, 1 Stat. 209 (allowing person who discovers violation
of spirits duties, or ofﬁcer who seizes contraband spirits, to sue for and
receive half of penalty and forfeiture, along with costs, in action of debt);
cf. Act of Apr. 30, 1790, ch. 9, §§ 16, 17, 1 Stat. 116 (allowing informer to
conduct prosecution, and receive half of ﬁne, for criminal larceny or receipt
of stolen goods).

7 See Act of July 31, 1789, ch. 5, § 29, 1 Stat. 44–45 (giving informer
full penalty paid by customs ofﬁcial for failing to post fee schedule); Act
of Aug. 4, 1790, ch. 35, § 55, 1 Stat. 173 (same); Act of July 31, 1789, ch. 5,
§ 38, 1 Stat. 48 (giving informer quarter of penalties, ﬁnes, and forfeitures
authorized under a customs law); Act of Sept. 1, 1789, ch. 11, § 21, 1 Stat.
60 (same under a maritime law); Act of Aug. 4, 1790, ch. 35, § 69, 1 Stat.
177 (same under another customs law); Act of Sept. 2, 1789, ch. 12, § 8, 1
Stat. 67 (providing informer half of penalty upon conviction for violation
of conﬂict-of-interest and bribery provisions in Act establishing Treasury
Department); Act of Mar. 3, 1791, ch. 8, § 1, 1 Stat. 215 (extending same to
additional Treasury employees); Act of Feb. 25, 1791, ch. 10, §§ 8, 9, 1 Stat.
195–196 (providing informer half or ﬁfth of ﬁnes resulting from improper
trading or lending by agents of Bank of United States); cf. Act of Aug. 4,
1790, ch. 35, § 4, 1 Stat. 153 (apportioning half of penalty for failing to
deposit ship manifest to ofﬁcial who should have received manifest, and
half to collector in port of destination).

We have suggested, in dictum, that “[s]tatutes providing for a reward
to informers which do not speciﬁcally either authorize or forbid the in-
former to institute the action are construed to authorize him to sue.”
United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U. S. 537, 541, n. 4 (1943).