1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Later Reg Trumps Contract Clause Again

Later Reg Trumps Contract Clause Again

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.28.05

In Fluor Hanford Inc. v. U.S. (July 1, 2005), the Court of Federal Claims upheld the contracting officer's disallowance of 20 percent of the costs of successfully defending a False Claims Act case, holding that a specific contractual provision in a 1996 DOE M&O contract promising to reimburse the contractor for all costs of civil actions that arose from conditions that existed before the contractor assumed responsibility for the plant was effectively trumped by 2001 changes to the FAR imposing an 80 percent limit on the allowability of legal fees incurred in the successful defense of qui tam actions under the False Claims Act in which the Government did not intervene. The decision relies on the Federal Circuit's analysis in Boeing N. Am., Inc. v. Roche, 298 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2002), and, with the ASBCA decision in Southwest Marine decided in February, this case reflects a disturbing trend to ignore specific contractual provisions about allowability in favor of substantive regulatory changes made years after the contract was awarded that the Federal Circuit characterized as a "clarification" with retroactive effect.

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