Unanimous Supreme Court Holds that Implied Certification Can be Basis for FCA Liability
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.16.16
On June 16, 2016, the Supreme Court handed down Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, holding unanimously that the “implied certification” theory can be a basis for False Claims Act (FCA) liability when a defendant submitting a claim makes specific representations about the goods or services provided, and fails to disclose noncompliance with material statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements, thereby making those representations misleading. Although the Court rejected the First Circuit’s broad materiality standard (that any legal noncompliance is material so long as the defendant knows that the government would be entitled to refuse payment were it aware of the violation), it made clear that the underlying statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement need not be an explicit condition of payment to trigger liability under the implied certification theory; rather, the test is whether the representation would likely influence government payment, a determination that may be made using both objective and subjective standards.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
