1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Ninth Circuit Narrows Qualifications for Being Qui Tam "Original Source"

Ninth Circuit Narrows Qualifications for Being Qui Tam "Original Source"

Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.04.14

The Ninth Circuit, in Malhotra v. Steinberg (Oct. 29, 2014), held that, despite tipping off the government as to one kind of wrongdoing by the defendant, the FCA relators were not the "original source" of a different alleged act of wrongdoing perpetrated by the same defendant, a bankruptcy trustee. The relators independently discovered and alerted federal authorities to defendant trustee's scheme to sell property at a price lower than fair market value, but because that federal investigation led to the public disclosure of the defendant's receipt of kickbacks from those sales, the court held that the relators were not the original source of the kickback allegation which formed the basis of their qui tam action.


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