1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Whistleblower's FCA Claims Fail Public Disclosure and First-to-File Bars

Whistleblower's FCA Claims Fail Public Disclosure and First-to-File Bars

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.01.13

In U.S. ex rel. Beauchamp v. Academi Training Center, Inc. (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 2013), in which C&M represented the defendant, the court dismissed all claims that Academi had violated the False Claims Act by allegedly falsifying its labor invoices and failing to qualify Afghanistan-based security personnel on certain weapons properly. The court held that public disclosure barred both claims because they either had been publicly disclosed in the media or in an earlier qui tam action brought against Academi (resulting in a judgment in favor of Academi with C&M defending), but also that the labor claim was precluded by the first-to-file bar because it was based on the underlying facts in a related and earlier-filed qui tam suit that was pending when the Beauchamp complaint was filed.


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