The False Claims Act's Seal Provisions Upheld
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.04.11
The False Claims Act contains seal provisions that require every qui tam complaint to be filed under seal for a 60-day period, which is often extended many times over, to give the Department of Justice an opportunity to investigate the allegations and intervene, if it chooses. In ACLU v. Holder (Mar. 28, 2011, http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/092086.P.pdf), the Fourth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, rejected arguments that these provisions violate the public’s First Amendment right of access to judicial proceedings or infringe the authority of federal courts to decide whether a particular complaint should be unsealed in violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers clause, noting that the seal provisions are narrowly tailored because, inter alia, relators are precluded only from publicly discussing the filing of the suit and not from disclosing the existence of the fraud.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
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.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
