DOJ Sets FCA Sights on Private-Sector Colleges
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.05.12
On August 30, the Justice Department intervened and filed an FCA complaint against ATI Enterprises, Inc., which operates private-sector colleges, alleging that ATI knowingly misrepresented its job placement statistics to maintain its state licensure and, thus, its eligibility for federal financial aid, knowingly enrolled under-qualified students, and fraudulently kept students enrolled despite insufficient attendance and poor grades. DOJ's announcement follows other recent high profile cases in the higher education arena, including US ex rel. Oberg v. Ky. Higher Educ. in June (in which the Fourth Circuit considered whether corporate entities created by states to provide higher education financing, accused of making false claims to DOE, were "persons" subject to FCA liability) and Cuccinelli v. Univ. of Va. in March (in which the Virginia Supreme Court held that UVA was not a "person" or "corporation" under the Virginia state-equivalent FCA).
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.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
