1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Government Assertion of State Secrets Privilege in Private Party Litigation

Government Assertion of State Secrets Privilege in Private Party Litigation

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.06.17

In a rare move, the Department of Justice intervened in Wever v. AECOM National Security Programs, Inc., asserting the state secrets privilege and requesting the dismissal of a $69 million dollar lawsuit between two private parties that it contends would risk the exposure of classified information if the suit were allowed to proceed. Although the Government was not an original party to the litigation, the Government argued in its Motion for Summary Judgment that the court is required to dismiss the case under the state secrets privilege because the Government, through the head of the department with control over the matter, after extensive consultation and coordination within and among relevant Executive Branch agencies, formally asserted the privilege and all three of the circumstances justifying dismissal exist: (1) the plaintiff cannot prove his or her claim without privileged evidence; (2) the defendants cannot properly defend the case without privileged evidence; and (3) further litigation would present an unjustifiable risk of disclosure.

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