1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |D.C. Circuit Loosens Public Disclosure Bar While Tightening the Reins on Damages

D.C. Circuit Loosens Public Disclosure Bar While Tightening the Reins on Damages

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.16.12

In United States ex rel. Davis v. District of Columbia (May 15, 2011), the D.C. Circuit held that recent Supreme Court precedent had abrogated the Circuit's long-standing rule that a relator must provide the government with the information upon which his allegations are based not only before filing an action, but also prior to any public disclosure. The Circuit Court also applied its recent holding in U.S. v. Science Applications Corp., 626 F.3d 1257, that proof of damages requires a showing that, as the result of the alleged fraud, the value of what the government received was less than what it believed it had purchased, finding that, in the matter before it, because there was no allegation that claimed reimbursements were for services not actually received or of inflated value -- only that they lacked documentary support -- "the government got what it paid for and there are no damages."

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

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....

View All Insights