1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Arbitrability Is for the Arbitrator to Decide

Arbitrability Is for the Arbitrator to Decide

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.02.13

In U.S. ex rel. Beauchamp v. Academi Training Center, Inc. (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2013), in which C&M represented the defendant, the court, after dismissing both FCA claims a week earlier, stayed the relators' retaliation claims, despite their allegations that the arbitration provision in their independent contractor agreements were unconscionable and that arbitrability was for the court to decide. The court held that the parties had delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator with "clear and unmistakable intent" by incorporating the AAA Commercial Rules into the agreements, a delegation which relators failed to challenge, thus leaving it to the arbitrator to decide whether other terms of the agreements made the arbitration provision unconscionable and unenforceable.


Contacts

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