On December 19, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a $54.4 million settlement with Ceratizit USA, LLC, a distributor of tungsten carbide products, resolving allegations that the company violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by evading customs duties on products imported from China. This settlement is believed to be the largest ever customs-related FCA resolution, and this high-water mark underscores the government’s heightened enforcement focus on tariff evasion.Continue Reading Record-Setting False Claims Act Settlement Highlights DOJ Commitment to Customs Enforcement
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
The Top FCA Developments of 2024
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
Let’s Talk FCA
Constitutionality of the Qui Tam Provisions
In this episode, Jason Crawford, Agustin Orozco, and Will Tucker discuss U.S. ex. rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates LLC, the recent decision in which a court found the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act to be unconstitutional. The hosts analyze the court’s reasoning and consider
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