Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 876

529US3

Unit: $U59

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

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

801

Stevens, J., dissenting

payers and citizens for whose beneﬁt the wrongdoer was
being chastised.” 453 U. S., at 263. That rationale is in-
applicable here. The taxpaying “citizens for whose beneﬁt”
the FCA is designed are the citizens of the United States,
not the citizens of any individual State that might violate the
It is true, of course, that the taxpayers of a State that
Act.
violates the FCA will ultimately bear the burden of paying
the treble damages.
It is not the coffers of the State (and
hence state taxpayers), however, that the FCA is designed
to protect, but the coffers of the National Government (and
hence the federal taxpayers). Accordingly, a treble dam-
ages remedy against a State does not “burden the very tax-
payers” the statute was designed to protect.11

III

Each of the constitutional issues identiﬁed in the Court’s
opinion requires only a brief comment. The historical evi-
dence summarized by the Court, ante, at 774–778, is obvi-
ously sufﬁcient to demonstrate that qui tam actions are
“cases” or “controversies” within the meaning of Article III.
That evidence, together with the evidence that private
prosecutions were commonplace in the 19th century, see
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83,
127–128, and nn. 24–25 (1998) (Stevens, J., concurring in
judgment), is also sufﬁcient to resolve the Article II question
that the Court has introduced sua sponte, ante, at 778, n. 8.
As for the State’s “Eleventh Amendment” sovereign im-
munity defense, I adhere to the view that Seminole Tribe
of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44 (1996), was wrongly decided.
See Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 97–99
(2000) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Seminole Tribe, 517 U. S.,
at 100–185 (Souter, J., dissenting). Accordingly, Congress’
clear intention to subject States to qui tam actions is also

11 It is also worth mentioning that treble damages may be reduced
to double damages if the court makes the requisite ﬁndings under
§§ 3729(a)(7)(A)–(C).