order dismissing without leave to amend his action alleging that the United States Congress violated the False Claims Act by failing to rescind the Eleventh Amendment sua sponte because it is preempted by Article III of the Constitution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing de novo. Rattlesnake Coal. v. EPA, 509 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm. The district court properly concluded that LaFreniere lacks standing under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), because LaFreniere has not alleged that the United States suffered an injury in fact. See Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 773-74, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000) (<HOLDING>). The district court also properly dismissed
holding that standing of a qui tam plaintiff under the false claims act requires an injury to the united states holding that apparel cleaners submission of false statements of their receipts a percentage of which were to be paid to the united states did not constitute false claims within the meaning of the federal false claims act holding that the fca effectively assigns the governments claims to qui tam plaintiffs  who then may sue based upon an injury to the federal treasury holding that a state or agency is not a person subject to qui tam liability under the false claims act holding that to be protected by the fca when confronting an employer the employee must sufficiently allege activity with a nexus to a qui tam action or fraud against the united states government