American Civil Liberties Union v. Holder
673 F.3d 245
4th Cir.2011Background
- Congress enacted the False Claims Act in 1863 amid Civil War fraud concerns and later amended it in 1986 to strengthen qui tam provisions.
- The FCA allows private relators to sue on the government's behalf and share in recovered proceeds; the government may intervene or decline to intervene.
- The 1986 amendments added mandatory seal provisions: qui tam complaints are filed under seal for at least 60 days to allow government investigation and possible intervention.
- Appellants (ACLU, OMB Watch, GAP) challenged the seal provisions as unconstitutional First Amendment restrictions and as infringements on separation of powers.
- The district court dismissed the challenge; on appeal, the Fourth Circuit held the seal provisions do not violate the First Amendment or separation of powers.
- The majority assumed, for argument, that First Amendment access applies to sealed qui tam filings, but still found the provisions narrowly tailored and constitutionally permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does First Amendment access extend to sealed qui tam filings? | ACLU argues sealing violates public access rights. | Government contends compelling interest in protecting investigations and narrowly tailored. | Assumed extended access exists; not guaranteed—seal provisions pass strict-tailoring test. |
| Do seal provisions gag relators from speaking about their complaints? | Appellants lack standing to challenge speech restrictions on relators. | Seal restricts relator speech about the complaint itself. | Appellants lack standing; challenge dismissed on lack of injury-in-fact. |
| Do seal provisions violate the separation of powers? | Seal provisions intrude on courts’ inherent powers to seal case-by-case. | Seal provisions are a valid congressional regulation within proper scope. | Seal provisions do not violate separation of powers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (U.S. 1982) (First Amendment access framework; compelled disclosures under certain interests)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1984) (open proceedings require balancing test for access)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1980) (public trials as a presumptive open feature)
- Virginia Dept. of State Police v. Washington Post, 386 F.3d 567 (4th Cir. 2004) (public access to civil documents; balancing of interests)
- Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249 (4th Cir. 1988) (First Amendment right to access filings in civil context)
- Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2000) (publicity of court records aids public judgment of judicial products)
- Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (U.S. 2000) (qui tam context; agency’s interest in enforcement and remedies)
- Under Seal v. Under Seal, 326 F.3d 479 (4th Cir. 2003) (seal duration and appellate treatment of sealed materials)
- Siller v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 21 F.3d 1339 (4th Cir. 1994) (in camera submissions and sealing in complex proceedings)