1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |FY2017 Suspension and Debarment Trends

FY2017 Suspension and Debarment Trends

Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.07.17

Crowell & Moring partner and former acting Air Force suspending and debarring official David Robbins published his annual examination of the government’s suspension and debarment statistics for the prior government fiscal year. The article, entitled Suspension and Debarment: FY 2017 By the Numbers ran in Law360 and may be accessed here. This article represents a deep dive into the raw suspension/debarment numbers listed on the System for Award Management and shows year-over-year trends not available on the government’s annual Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee report. It covers agency-specific trends for excluding individuals, small businesses, traditional government contractors, and non-traditional government contractors.

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....