1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Gov Con Legal Resources App

Gov Con Legal Resources App

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.08.19

We are pleased to announce the launch of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Legal Resource Center app. We have put a lot of time and energy into creating a useful tool with universally applicable information, statutes and regulations, as well as customized, interactive Crowell & Moring content like video alerts, podcasts, compliance checklists, filing timelines, etc. This app represents a new way to connect with our clients and the industry and we expect to continually enhance and expand its content in the months to come. We hope you find it valuable and welcome your feedback.

GovCon Legal Resource Center is available on both iOS and Android or by visiting https://www.crowell.com/GovConLegalResourceCenter.

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....