Under 31 U.S.C.§ 3730, the government may dismiss a federal False Claims Act case despite the objection of the relator who filed it. The DC Circuit has held that the executive branch wields unreviewable discretion in choosing to dismiss a False Claims Act suit. (Swift v. United States (D.C. Cir. 2003) 318 F.3d 250, 252.) The Ninth Circuit holds that to obtain court approval, the government must demonstrate “a valid government purpose”; and “a rational relation between dismissal and accomplishment of that purpose.” (Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp. (9th Cir. 1998) 151 F.3d 1139, 1145.) This decision does not choose between these two lines of authority, finding that the government had satisfied the more restrictive Sequoia Orange test by showing that it thought the case lacked merit and would require it to expend large sums in providing discovery regarding the millions of Medicare claims at issue. The decision also holds that before approving the government’s motion to dismiss, the court must hold a hearing to air the relator’s objections, but that such a hearing was held in this case. It does not decide whether the court must allow evidence to be introduced at the hearing since the relator in this case never asked to present evidence at the hearing.