FY 2024 saw continued growth in False Claims Act enforcement, with a record year for new qui tam and government-initiated actions, and the highest total recovery in three years. Enforcement of pandemic-related fraud and cybersecurity noncompliance increased, and health care, procurement, and small business fraud violations were again priority areas. A groundbreaking opinion from the
AG Nominee Pam Bondi Confirms Commitment To Defending Constitutionality of False Claims Act as Qui Tam Provisions Face Scrutiny in the Courts
Yesterday, less than an hour into the first day of confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee Pam Bondi, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) questioned Bondi on her commitment to defending the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) if she is confirmed. Bondi responded that she would “of course” defend the constitutionality of the FCA and that she understands the importance of whistleblowers, the FCA’s protections, and “the money it brings back to our country.” Senator Grassley’s questioning indicated he was focused on the FCA’s qui tam provisions, as it comes on the heels of U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, Inc., — F.Supp.3d –, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024), a first-of-its-kind decision from Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, who held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions improperly appoint a relator “an officer of the United States” in violation of the Appointments Clause in Article II of the Constitution, and are therefore unconstitutional. Senator Grassley appeared to be seeking assurances about Bondi’s willingness to ensure the Department of Justice continues to defend the FCA’s qui tam provisions and commit the resources necessary to do so.Continue Reading AG Nominee Pam Bondi Confirms Commitment To Defending Constitutionality of False Claims Act as Qui Tam Provisions Face Scrutiny in the Courts
Trick or Treat? What You Need to Know About a First-of-its-Kind Decision Declaring FCA Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional
Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently declared the False Claims Act qui tam provisions unconstitutional in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, — F.Supp.3d –, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024), turning up the heat on a simmering constitutional fight
In the Upside Down: District Court Upends Decades of False Claims Act Precedent in Declaring Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional
In a novel False Claims Act (FCA) ruling, on September 30, 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida upended decades of FCA jurisprudence in declaring the qui tam provisions of the FCA unconstitutional in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024). This decision follows Justice Thomas’ dissent in the recent Supreme Court decision, U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023), where he posited, “[t]here are substantial arguments that the qui tam device is inconsistent with Article II and that private relators may not represent the interests of the United States in litigation.” While Justice Thomas’ implicit constitutional challenge was not entirely new to FCA practitioners, including it in his Polansky dissent, with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett in a concurring opinion noting their agreement that the Court should consider the constitutional questions in an appropriate case, swung wide open a door of opportunity for defendants and their counsel to attempt to dismiss FCA qui tam suits on constitutional grounds. Judge Mizelle’s decision in Zafirov is the first of its kind to actually dismiss a qui tam suit on constitutional grounds, and will likely lead to an avalanche of similar motions in nearly every non-intervened lawsuit brought by a relator.Continue Reading In the Upside Down: District Court Upends Decades of False Claims Act Precedent in Declaring Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional
False Claims Act Settlement Illustrates Value of Disclosure and Cooperation
A recently-announced False Claims Act (FCA) settlement illustrates how government contractors and other FCA defendants can take advantage of a Department of Justice (DOJ) policy that rewards voluntary self-disclosure to, and subsequent cooperation with, the government.Continue Reading False Claims Act Settlement Illustrates Value of Disclosure and Cooperation
The Top FCA Developments of 2023
2023 brought many important False Claims Act developments for companies with business involving government funds. While overall recoveries remained down compared to pre-2022 levels, the total number of settlements and judgments exceeded any prior year. Those settlements and judgments also highlight areas of particular focus for the Government, including cybersecurity compliance, pandemic fraud, and small
Counterclaims Against Compliance-Officer-Turned-Relator Survive Motion to Dismiss
A recent decision in a non-intervened qui tam suit in the Northern District of Georgia provides an example of a defendant threading the needle to avoid dismissal of its counterclaims despite those counterclaims arguably implicating the conduct that the relator alleged violated the False Claims Act (FCA). It also stands as a rare instance where a company’s counterclaims against an FCA relator have survived early court scrutiny and, as such, provides FCA defendants with a potential strategy to combat opportunistic relators.Continue Reading Counterclaims Against Compliance-Officer-Turned-Relator Survive Motion to Dismiss
He’s a Material Guy in a Material World: Senator Grassley Proposes FCA Amendments to Weaken Materiality Defense Where Government Pays Despite Knowledge of Non-Compliance
The continual push and pull between the courts and Congress over the contours of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) has once again spawned proposed legislation unfavorable to FCA defendants, this time poised to curtail defense arguments that continued government payment of claims in the face of alleged noncompliance with contractual or other legal requirements demonstrates a lack of materiality.
On July 25, 2023, a bipartisan group of senators proposed legislation entitled the “False Claims Act Amendments of 2023.” Spearheaded by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the principal author of the 1986 FCA amendments, the bill purportedly attempts to close certain FCA defense “loopholes” left open by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U.S. 176 (2016) (“Escobar”). Senator Grassley has been an outspoken critic of more recent FCA judicial developments, which he deems a gradual curbing of the power of the “single greatest tool in the fight against fraud.” These newest proposed amendments are another example of Grassley’s advocacy for stronger and more rigid fraud enforcement than courts have been willing to impose based on the text of the FCA. Continue Reading He’s a Material Guy in a Material World: Senator Grassley Proposes FCA Amendments to Weaken Materiality Defense Where Government Pays Despite Knowledge of Non-Compliance
Let’s Talk FCA: Supreme Court Upholds DOJ’s Broad Dismissal Authority
In this episode, Jason Crawford, Agustin Orozco, and Lyndsay Gorton discuss the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States ex rel. Polansky, which held in an 8-1 decision that the Department of Justice maintains broad authority to dismiss qui tam cases over a relator’s objection. The hosts also discuss Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion which could
See(2)(A) You Later: Supreme Court Holds that DOJ Has Broad Dismissal Authority Even After Unsealing
On June 16, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court, in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources Inc., held that the Government may seek dismissal of a False Claims Act (“FCA”) qui tam suit over a relator’s objection so long as it intervenes in the litigation, either during the initial seal period or afterward. The Court also held that, when handling such a motion, district courts should apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 41(a), the rule generally governing voluntary dismissal of suits. And in a dissent that—in the long run—may end up being more impactful than the Court’s holding, Justice Thomas (joined in a concurring opinion by Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett) questioned the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions themselves. Continue Reading See(2)(A) You Later: Supreme Court Holds that DOJ Has Broad Dismissal Authority Even After Unsealing