Can a Private Party Enforce a Federal Statute?

Most of us are taught from an early age that you can’t
take the law into your own hands. But, in Stauffer
v. Brooks Bros., Inc., the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of
Appeals considered whether a private party had the
standing to enforce the false marking statute. And
the court’s finding may surprise you.
Plaintiff all tied up
Brooks Brothers manufactures and sells bow ties with
an “Adjustolox” mechanism that’s manufactured by
J.M.C. Bow Company. The ties are marked with numbers
for two patents that expired in 1954 and 1955.
Raymond Stauffer is a patent attorney who purchased
some of the marked bow ties. In December
2008, he brought a qui tam action against Brooks
Brothers under the false marking statute, which
prohibits marking an unpatented article, in a way
that indicates the article is patented, for purposes of
deceiving the public.
In a qui tam action, a private citizen sues for a
statutory penalty (up to $500 for each case of false
marking), with any penalties recovered to be split
equally with the government. But the district court
dismissed this particular action, finding that Stauffer
lacked standing to bring the claim because he’d failed
to show that the government had suffered an injury.
Standing knot a problem
The Federal Circuit explained that the qui tam provision
in the false marking statute operates as a partial
assignment, or transfer, of the government’s rights
to damages to a private party. For Stauffer to have
standing, he must allege that the government has
suffered an injury causally connected to the defendant’s
conduct.
The appellate court found that, by enacting the false
marking statute, Congress defined an injury to the
government as “a violation of that statute [that]
inherently constitutes an injury to the United States.”
The government would, therefore, have standing to
enforce the statute, as would its assignee.
Reverse Windsor
Interestingly, the Federal Circuit suggested that the
qui tam provision in the false marking statute might
not withstand a challenge to its constitutionality.
But because the defense didn’t raise constitutional
issues on appeal, the court declined to determine
the statute’s constitutionality. Instead, it reversed
the district court and sent the case back for consideration
on the merits of the claim. need a loan fast with bad credit bad credit personal loans for