1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Jurisdiction Found Over 85-804 Indemnification Clause Breach Claims

Jurisdiction Found Over 85-804 Indemnification Clause Breach Claims

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.01.06

In an important case of first impression, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in The Boeing Co. (Apr. 12, 2006, http://www.crowell.com/pdf/expertise/govtcontracts/ASBCA_decision.pdf), has held that it has jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act to consider claims for the costs of investigation and remediation of ground water pollution and toxic tort litigation under indemnification clauses authorized pursuant to the “residual powers” authority of Public Law 85-804 and 10 U.S.C. § 2354. The Board concluded that Public Law 85-804, 10 U.S.C. § 2354, and statutory and contractual provisions allegedly providing for secretarial and/or congressional approval did not divest the Board of its CDA jurisdiction because, inter alia , acceptance of such arguments would render the indemnification clauses, which were included in prime contracts awarded to Boeing and subcontracts awarded to Lockheed Martin Corporation in the 1960s and 1970s, “illusory.”

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