FCA does not violate Article II. However, they rested their holdings more directly on the control mechanisms available to the government, rather than on historical justifications. See U.S. ex. rel. Kelly, 9. F.3d at 755 (finding that “the Executive Branch exer cises at least an equivalent amount of control over qui tam relators as it does over independent counsels”); U.S. ex rel. Taxpayers Against Fraud v. Gen. Elec. Co., 41 F.3d 1032, 1041 (6th Cir.1994) (finding that “the qui tam provisions ... do not contradict the constitutional principle of separation of powers [because] ... [t]hey have been crafted with particular care to maintain the primacy of the Executive Branch in prosecuting false-claims actions”); U.S. ex rel. Kreindler v. United Techs., 985 F.2d 1148, 1155 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the Tenth Circuit took a
holding that state attorney general as member of executive department may assert claim of executive privilege recognizing as a matter of law executive privilege for governor holding that the first amendment right of public access does not extend to nonjudicial documents compiled during an executive branch investigation holding that the qui tam provisions do not usurp the executive litigating function because the statute gives the executive branch substantial control over the litigation holding executive branch prosecution of disciplinary charges against judge before commission violated separation of powers clause in nevada constitution