The Constitutionality of the False Claims Act Qui Tam Provisions Stays Unsure

by Bryce L. Friedman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Zachary Hafer, and Jeffrey Knox

From left to proper: Bryce L. Friedman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Zachary Hafer, and Jeffrey Knox (photographs courtesy of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP)

The US recovers in extra of $2 billion yearly via False Claims Act enforcement. The Act is among the many United States’ strongest anti-fraud instruments. Litigation in opposition to firms and buyers underneath the Act is rising, partly, as a result of the qui tam provisions of the Act enable non-public people to file litigation within the identify of the US and to acquire a proportion of any restoration. After a sequence of choices from the decrease federal courts, it’s turning into more and more possible that the Supreme Courtroom will evaluation the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions of the Act.

In 2023, three Supreme Courtroom justices opened the door to constitutional challenges to the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions, which permit non-public people to carry lawsuits on behalf of the US to get better damages payable to the federal government. Final week, Decide Ho of the Fifth Circuit turned the newest decrease court docket decide to echo the view that courts ought to revisit the constitutionality of those provisions.

In United States ex rel. Polansky v. Government Well being Sources, Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023) (“Polansky”), Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in dissent, argued that the False Claims Act (“FCA”) qui tam provisions violate Article II of the Structure. Justice Thomas discovered that the qui tam machine improperly empowers non-public people to regulate and conduct litigation to vindicate public rights—an influence that Article II vests solely within the Government Department. Concurring individually, Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett equally famous “the Courtroom ought to think about the competing arguments on the Article II problem in an acceptable case.” Polansky, 599 U.S. at 442.

Following Polansky, one decide within the U.S. District Courtroom for the Center District of Florida has declared the FCA qui tam provisions to be unconstitutional in two separate selections over the previous 12 months. Though different district courts to deal with the query have largely discovered that constitutional challenges to the qui tam mechanism to be foreclosed by long-standing circuit precedent, a current concurrence within the Fifth Circuit echoes Justice Kavanaugh and Barret’s sentiment that this precedent deserves reconsideration.

The FCA permits non-public people, often called “relators,” to carry lawsuits within the identify of the US in opposition to any one that knowingly presents a false declare for cost to the US. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). To encourage relators to carry go well with, a prevailing relator is usually awarded 15 to 30 p.c of the federal government’s complete restoration, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d). Qui tam complaints are first filed underneath seal, and the Division of Justice has the choice to additional examine the allegations via the complete suite of investigative instruments, together with civil investigative calls for for paperwork and testimony, and may finally intervene within the case and litigate on behalf of the US. Nevertheless, if DOJ declines to intervene within the case, the relator can proceed with the go well with and bind the federal authorities with out direct accountability to anybody within the Government Department. Because of this, absent intervention by the DOJ, a relator has discretion to determine who to research, who to cost within the criticism, which claims to pursue, and whether or not to attraction.

Decide Kathryn Mizelle of the U.S. District Courtroom of the Center District of Florida held in two separate instances that the FCA qui tam provisions violate Article II’s Appointments Clause by allowing “unaccountable, unsworn, non-public actors to train core govt energy with substantial penalties to members of the general public.” In Zafirov ex rel. United States v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, the defendants argued that the relator was an “officer” of the US for functions of Article II of the Structure however was not appointed by the manager department in accordance with the constitutional necessities. To be an “Officer of the US,” one should train vital authority pursuant to the legal guidelines of the US and occupy a seamless place established by regulation. Officers of the US are topic to the Appointments Clause, which permits Congress by regulation to vest the appointment of inferior officers within the President, the top of an govt division, or a court docket. The FCA, nevertheless, permits any “particular person” to nominate themselves by initiating an enforcement motion. As a result of such self-appointment doesn’t fulfill the Appointments Clause, the FCA’s qui tam provision is unconstitutional if a relator is an officer of the US.

To find {that a} relator constituted an officer of the US, Decide Mizelle emphasised that FCA relators occupy a seamless place established by regulation as a result of they’ve statutorily outlined duties, powers, and emoluments. Echoing Justice Thomas’s dissent in Polanksy, she discovered that the ability to provoke an FCA motion to vindicate the US’ curiosity was not solely vital governmental authority, however a “core” govt energy. In United States ex rel. Gose v. Native Am. Servs. Corp, Decide Mizelle dismissed one other FCA criticism on the identical grounds. 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101549, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Could 29, 2025). Each selections are on attraction to the Eleventh Circuit.

Different district courts, together with within the Center District of Florida, have refused to observe go well with, largely discovering that the “weight of the regulation is on the contrary at the moment.” United States ex rel. Publix Litig. P’ship, LLP v. Publix Tremendous Mkts., Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166252, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2025). As district courts have defined, most circuits have long-standing precedent upholding “the FCA’s qui tam provisions as constitutional.” United States of Am. ex rel. Relator LLC v. Tennyson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194153, at *19-20 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2025) (noting the Ninth Circuit’s “32-year outdated precedent”); United States ex rel. Adams v. Chattanooga Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209546, 2024 WL 4784372, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 7, 2024) (discovering the Center District of Florida instances to be “outlier[s] … that whistle[ ] previous precedent….”). Because the U.S. District Courtroom for the District of Rhode Island discovered final week, “each circuit court docket to think about the Appointments Clause problem has dominated exactly the alternative.” United States ex rel. Souza v. Embrace Residence Loans, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217009, at *2 n.1 (D.R.I. Nov. 3, 2025).

These courts have reasoned that the relator’s energy to regulate the litigation is “hardly ‘unfettered.’” For instance, in October, the U.S. District Courtroom for the Japanese District of Wisconsin defined that 1) a relator should notify the DOJ, which is then given the chance to research and intervene within the go well with; 2) by electing to intervene, the federal government retains authority to take over the prosecution of the case; and three) the federal government can dismiss the motion over the objection of the relator. United States ex rel. Heath v. Wis. Bell, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217468, at *33 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 29, 2025). Equally, the court docket discovered that the place of relator was not “persevering with” as a result of the motion “begins with a specific relator and ends with a specific relator.”

Recognizing the hurdle introduced by pre-Polanksy circuit authority, the Agency argued on behalf of a shopper in an FCA case earlier this 12 months that the constitutionality of the qui tam provision needs to be licensed to the Fifth Circuit for reconsideration. Though that case was resolved earlier than the district court docket determined our movement, two Fifth Circuit judges have since referred to as for the court docket to rethink these constitutional challenges. In March, Decide Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote “individually to level out the constitutional flaws within the FCA’s qui tam machine, which our precedent prevents us from addressing.” United States ex rel. Montcrief v. Peripheral Vascular Assocs., P.A., 133 F.4th 395, 410 (fifth Cir. 2025). Final week, Fifth Circuit additionally Decide James C. Ho wrote in a concurring opinion that the court docket “ought to revisit whether or not there are critical constitutional issues with the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act.” United States ex rel. Gentry v. Embody Well being Rehab. Hosp. of Pearland, L.L.C., No. 25-20093, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 28755, at *12 (fifth Cir. Nov. 3, 2025.).

Thus, though district courts are adhering to long-standing circuit-level precedent foreclosing constitutional challenges to the FCA’s qui tam mechanism, defendants dealing with FCA claims ought to think about shifting to certify the query to the related circuit court docket of appeals. We’ll proceed to observe selections from different federal courts addressing the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions.

Bryce L. Friedman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Zachary Hafer, and Jeffrey Knox are Companions at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. Adrienne Baxley is Counsel and Evan Gilbert is an Affiliate at Simpson Thacher who additionally contributed to this text. This publish first appeared as a agency shopper memo.

The views, opinions and positions expressed inside all posts are these of the writer(s) alone and don’t symbolize these of the Program on Company Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) or of the New York College Faculty of Legislation. PCCE makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness and validity or any statements made on this web site and won’t be liable any errors, omissions or representations. The copyright of this content material belongs to the writer(s) and any legal responsibility close to infringement of mental property rights stays with the writer(s).

by Bryce L. Friedman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Zachary Hafer, and Jeffrey Knox

From left to proper: Bryce L. Friedman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Zachary Hafer, and Jeffrey Knox (photographs courtesy of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP)

The US recovers in extra of $2 billion yearly via False Claims Act enforcement. The Act is among the many United States’ strongest anti-fraud instruments. Litigation in opposition to firms and buyers underneath the Act is rising, partly, as a result of the qui tam provisions of the Act enable non-public people to file litigation within the identify of the US and to acquire a proportion of any restoration. After a sequence of choices from the decrease federal courts, it’s turning into more and more possible that the Supreme Courtroom will evaluation the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions of the Act.

In 2023, three Supreme Courtroom justices opened the door to constitutional challenges to the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions, which permit non-public people to carry lawsuits on behalf of the US to get better damages payable to the federal government. Final week, Decide Ho of the Fifth Circuit turned the newest decrease court docket decide to echo the view that courts ought to revisit the constitutionality of those provisions.

In United States ex rel. Polansky v. Government Well being Sources, Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023) (“Polansky”), Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in dissent, argued that the False Claims Act (“FCA”) qui tam provisions violate Article II of the Structure. Justice Thomas discovered that the qui tam machine improperly empowers non-public people to regulate and conduct litigation to vindicate public rights—an influence that Article II vests solely within the Government Department. Concurring individually, Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett equally famous “the Courtroom ought to think about the competing arguments on the Article II problem in an acceptable case.” Polansky, 599 U.S. at 442.

Following Polansky, one decide within the U.S. District Courtroom for the Center District of Florida has declared the FCA qui tam provisions to be unconstitutional in two separate selections over the previous 12 months. Though different district courts to deal with the query have largely discovered that constitutional challenges to the qui tam mechanism to be foreclosed by long-standing circuit precedent, a current concurrence within the Fifth Circuit echoes Justice Kavanaugh and Barret’s sentiment that this precedent deserves reconsideration.

The FCA permits non-public people, often called “relators,” to carry lawsuits within the identify of the US in opposition to any one that knowingly presents a false declare for cost to the US. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). To encourage relators to carry go well with, a prevailing relator is usually awarded 15 to 30 p.c of the federal government’s complete restoration, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d). Qui tam complaints are first filed underneath seal, and the Division of Justice has the choice to additional examine the allegations via the complete suite of investigative instruments, together with civil investigative calls for for paperwork and testimony, and may finally intervene within the case and litigate on behalf of the US. Nevertheless, if DOJ declines to intervene within the case, the relator can proceed with the go well with and bind the federal authorities with out direct accountability to anybody within the Government Department. Because of this, absent intervention by the DOJ, a relator has discretion to determine who to research, who to cost within the criticism, which claims to pursue, and whether or not to attraction.

Decide Kathryn Mizelle of the U.S. District Courtroom of the Center District of Florida held in two separate instances that the FCA qui tam provisions violate Article II’s Appointments Clause by allowing “unaccountable, unsworn, non-public actors to train core govt energy with substantial penalties to members of the general public.” In Zafirov ex rel. United States v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, the defendants argued that the relator was an “officer” of the US for functions of Article II of the Structure however was not appointed by the manager department in accordance with the constitutional necessities. To be an “Officer of the US,” one should train vital authority pursuant to the legal guidelines of the US and occupy a seamless place established by regulation. Officers of the US are topic to the Appointments Clause, which permits Congress by regulation to vest the appointment of inferior officers within the President, the top of an govt division, or a court docket. The FCA, nevertheless, permits any “particular person” to nominate themselves by initiating an enforcement motion. As a result of such self-appointment doesn’t fulfill the Appointments Clause, the FCA’s qui tam provision is unconstitutional if a relator is an officer of the US.

To find {that a} relator constituted an officer of the US, Decide Mizelle emphasised that FCA relators occupy a seamless place established by regulation as a result of they’ve statutorily outlined duties, powers, and emoluments. Echoing Justice Thomas’s dissent in Polanksy, she discovered that the ability to provoke an FCA motion to vindicate the US’ curiosity was not solely vital governmental authority, however a “core” govt energy. In United States ex rel. Gose v. Native Am. Servs. Corp, Decide Mizelle dismissed one other FCA criticism on the identical grounds. 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101549, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Could 29, 2025). Each selections are on attraction to the Eleventh Circuit.

Different district courts, together with within the Center District of Florida, have refused to observe go well with, largely discovering that the “weight of the regulation is on the contrary at the moment.” United States ex rel. Publix Litig. P’ship, LLP v. Publix Tremendous Mkts., Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166252, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2025). As district courts have defined, most circuits have long-standing precedent upholding “the FCA’s qui tam provisions as constitutional.” United States of Am. ex rel. Relator LLC v. Tennyson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194153, at *19-20 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2025) (noting the Ninth Circuit’s “32-year outdated precedent”); United States ex rel. Adams v. Chattanooga Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209546, 2024 WL 4784372, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 7, 2024) (discovering the Center District of Florida instances to be “outlier[s] … that whistle[ ] previous precedent….”). Because the U.S. District Courtroom for the District of Rhode Island discovered final week, “each circuit court docket to think about the Appointments Clause problem has dominated exactly the alternative.” United States ex rel. Souza v. Embrace Residence Loans, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217009, at *2 n.1 (D.R.I. Nov. 3, 2025).

These courts have reasoned that the relator’s energy to regulate the litigation is “hardly ‘unfettered.’” For instance, in October, the U.S. District Courtroom for the Japanese District of Wisconsin defined that 1) a relator should notify the DOJ, which is then given the chance to research and intervene within the go well with; 2) by electing to intervene, the federal government retains authority to take over the prosecution of the case; and three) the federal government can dismiss the motion over the objection of the relator. United States ex rel. Heath v. Wis. Bell, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217468, at *33 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 29, 2025). Equally, the court docket discovered that the place of relator was not “persevering with” as a result of the motion “begins with a specific relator and ends with a specific relator.”

Recognizing the hurdle introduced by pre-Polanksy circuit authority, the Agency argued on behalf of a shopper in an FCA case earlier this 12 months that the constitutionality of the qui tam provision needs to be licensed to the Fifth Circuit for reconsideration. Though that case was resolved earlier than the district court docket determined our movement, two Fifth Circuit judges have since referred to as for the court docket to rethink these constitutional challenges. In March, Decide Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote “individually to level out the constitutional flaws within the FCA’s qui tam machine, which our precedent prevents us from addressing.” United States ex rel. Montcrief v. Peripheral Vascular Assocs., P.A., 133 F.4th 395, 410 (fifth Cir. 2025). Final week, Fifth Circuit additionally Decide James C. Ho wrote in a concurring opinion that the court docket “ought to revisit whether or not there are critical constitutional issues with the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act.” United States ex rel. Gentry v. Embody Well being Rehab. Hosp. of Pearland, L.L.C., No. 25-20093, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 28755, at *12 (fifth Cir. Nov. 3, 2025.).

Thus, though district courts are adhering to long-standing circuit-level precedent foreclosing constitutional challenges to the FCA’s qui tam mechanism, defendants dealing with FCA claims ought to think about shifting to certify the query to the related circuit court docket of appeals. We’ll proceed to observe selections from different federal courts addressing the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions.

Bryce L. Friedman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Zachary Hafer, and Jeffrey Knox are Companions at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. Adrienne Baxley is Counsel and Evan Gilbert is an Affiliate at Simpson Thacher who additionally contributed to this text. This publish first appeared as a agency shopper memo.

The views, opinions and positions expressed inside all posts are these of the writer(s) alone and don’t symbolize these of the Program on Company Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) or of the New York College Faculty of Legislation. PCCE makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness and validity or any statements made on this web site and won’t be liable any errors, omissions or representations. The copyright of this content material belongs to the writer(s) and any legal responsibility close to infringement of mental property rights stays with the writer(s).