1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Court of Federal Claims Permits Affordable Care Act "Risk Corridors" Case to Proceed

Court of Federal Claims Permits Affordable Care Act "Risk Corridors" Case to Proceed

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.02.16

In Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. (Dec. 2, 2016) the CFC held that the “existence of separate, active cases” whose outcomes will impact the issues raised by a plaintiff fails to meet the Government’s burden to justify a stay of litigation under Federal Circuit precedent. Plaintiff Maine Community Health Options (represented by C&M) is one of 13 health insurers who have filed suit against the Government under the Tucker Act seeking to recover “risk corridors” payments pursuant to §1342 of the Affordable Care Act.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25

A Sign of What’s to Come? Court Dismisses FCA Retaliation Complaint Based on Alleged Discriminatory Use of Federal Funding

On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future....

View All Insights