Split D.C. Circuit Limits False Claims Act Liability Under Federal Grants
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.17.04
In U.S. ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp. (Aug. 27, 2004), a divided D.C. Circuit upheld dismissal of a qui tam complaint alleging that a contractor for a federal grantee had submitted false claims to the grantee, reasoning that presentation of the claims to (and their payment by) the federal grantee did not, by itself, satisfy the FCA provision that actionable claims be "presented to an officer or employee of the … Government" (31 USC 3729(a)(1), emphasis added), or the alternate FCA provision imposing liability for a false record made in order to get a false claim "paid or approved by the Government" ((31 USC 3729(a)(2), emphasis added). The dissent argued vigorously that the consequence of the majority's opinion is a "dramatic cutback" in FCA coverage because it would preclude liability in the common situation where a grantee is not required to seek Government approval before paying a contractor's invoice.
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
