1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Too Bad, So Sad

Too Bad, So Sad

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.25.06

In a "twist" that reminds one of the immortal words of Mr. Bumble, "If the law supposes that, then the law
is a a--," after the Court of Federal Claims had held last year in Int'l Data Products Corp. v. U.S. that the termination of an IT products provider's contract also extinguished its warranty obligations for products already delivered, Judge George Miller has now held (Apr. 10, 2006) that the contractor cannot recover under any contract theory (including quantum meruit ) for the warranty services provided after termination, which the contractor had provided under protest because the government threatened default and debarment if it did not. The court reasoned that, because there was no written contract after the termination and because the contractor had never agreed to provide the post-termination services willingly, there was neither an express nor an implied contract for the services, depriving the court of jurisdiction.

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