Insights

On August 29, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched a cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force to expand efforts to target importers and other parties committing trade-related fraud. As stated in a press release issued on August 29, the Task Force will augment the existing coordination mechanisms within the DOJ and DHS, for instance through partnerships with CBP and Homeland Security Investigations, to “aggressively” take enforcement measures against parties that commit tariff evasion or attempt to smuggle prohibited goods into the U.S.

On August 19, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) informed insurers participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits or Postal Service Health Benefits programs that gender-affirming care would no longer be covered for federal workers starting in 2026. This coverage decision is the Trump Administration’s latest action stemming from Executive Order 14187 which aims to prevent certain treatments, such as gender-affirming hormone therapy, surgeries, and puberty blockers for those under the age of 19. As previously discussed, the Administration has also signaled its intent to use various law enforcement tools against gender-affirming care, including  Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to police false or unsupported claims by medical professionals about gender-affirming treatments.

On June 23, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued a long-awaited decision in Island Industries Inc. v. Sigma Corp. affirming a $26M False Claims Act (“FCA”) judgment against the defendant importer.  Sigma had appealed the judgment after a jury found the company violated the FCA by failing to pay customs duties owed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”).  The Ninth Circuit’s decision addresses an important jurisdictional issue and illustrates the significant financial exposure importers can face under the FCA at a time of increased tariffs and enforcement by the government.  

Underscoring the Administration’s intention to eradicate DEI preferences and mandates, the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched a new Civil Rights Fraud Initiative (Initiative) to be co-led by DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and Fraud Section. In response, Crowell launched its own DEI and Civil Fraud Initiative to support clients in managing the heightened risks associated with this new enforcement landscape.

The Supreme Court last week blessed a broad reading of the federal wire fraud statute, resolving a circuit split over whether economic loss is an element of fraudulent inducement and bolstering the Government’s future enforcement of procurement fraud. In Kousisis et al. v. United States (unanimous in judgment), the Court upheld the conviction of a government contractor for falsely representing compliance with disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) requirements in contracts awarded by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), despite completing the contracts to PennDOT’s satisfaction. The Court held that a material misrepresentation used to deceive someone into parting with money or property is sufficient for a federal wire fraud conviction, regardless of whether the victim suffered any economic loss.

On May 19, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a Memorandum creating the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative that will “utilize the False Claims Act to investigate and . . . pursue claims against any recipient of federal funds that knowingly violates federal civil rights laws.” According to the Memorandum, though racial discrimination has “always been illegal,” the Administration posits that “many corporations and schools continue to adhere to racist policies and preferences—albeit camouflaged with cosmetic changes that disguise their discriminatory nature.” In an effort to prevent federal funds from being used in connection with or support of these purportedly racist policies and preferences, the Initiative will wield the power of the False Claims Act, the government’s most powerful tool to fight fraud, waste, and abuse.

The Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“IIJA”) appropriated hundreds of billions of dollars in grants, loans, and other funding to facilitate clean energy and infrastructure deployment, advance Environmental Justice policy objectives, and address climate change concerns. While many companies, non-profits, and other recipients have reaped the benefits of those programs, they may also now be exposed to increased risks from Congressional investigations; enforcement actions; inspector general reviews; terminations for alleged waste, fraud, and abuse; and in extreme instances, potential exposure to criminal liability.

United States Attorneys’ Offices recently announced a number of False Claims Act (FCA) settlements arising out of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). These settlements reveal several trends that PPP loan recipients should be aware of.

On December 18, 2024, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas announced a $680,000 False Claims Act (FCA) settlement with Lafayette RE Management LLC (Lafayette) in connection with the real estate investment firm’s receipt of a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan at the height of the pandemic.  Crowell has previously reported on DOJ’s steady pursuit of PPP cases which have resulted in FCA settlements based on issues such as affiliation (discussed here) and ineligibility under the program’s rules (discussed here), but the Lafayette settlement is the first time that the government has intervened in a case based on the economic necessity certification that all PPP borrowers had to make on the initial loan application.  

Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently declared the False Claims Act qui tam provisions unconstitutional in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, -- F.Supp.3d --, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024), turning up the heat on a simmering constitutional fight that is increasingly likely to reach the Supreme Court in the next few years. Judge Mizelle's decision was the first to strike down the FCA qui tam provisions, but not the first to consider the issue. Arguments challenging the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions proliferated after Justice Thomas indicated some doubt about the qui tam device in his dissent in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). But every other judge to consider the issue has upheld the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions.

In a novel False Claims Act (FCA) ruling, on September 30, 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida upended decades of FCA jurisprudence in declaring the qui tam provisions of the FCA unconstitutional in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024). This decision follows Justice Thomas’ dissent in the recent Supreme Court decision, U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023), where he posited, “[t]here are substantial arguments that the qui tam device is inconsistent with Article II and that private relators may not represent the interests of the United States in litigation.” While Justice Thomas’ implicit constitutional challenge was not entirely new to FCA practitioners, including it in his Polansky dissent, with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett in a concurring opinion noting their agreement that the Court should consider the constitutional questions in an appropriate case, swung wide open a door of opportunity for defendants and their counsel to attempt to dismiss FCA qui tam suits on constitutional grounds. Judge Mizelle’s decision in Zafirov is the first of its kind to actually dismiss a qui tam suit on constitutional grounds, and will likely lead to an avalanche of similar motions in nearly every non-intervened lawsuit brought by a relator.

On August 8, 2024, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California announced a $6.3 million False Claims Act settlement with West Coast Dental Administrative Services LLC (formerly West Coast Dental Services Inc.) and its founders and former owners due to seven improper second-draw Paycheck Protection Program loans received by West Coast Dental and affiliated dental offices. 

On August 5, 2024, in United States ex rel. Relator LLC v. Howard D. Kootstra and Golden Empire Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00924-TLN-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the District Court for the Eastern District of California granted a motion to dismiss allegations that a mortgage lender made false or fraudulent statements on its Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application in violation of the False Claims Act where the relator could not overcome the FCA’s public disclosure bar.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that a homeowners association (HOA) in California has reached an agreement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to resolve allegations that the HOA obtained approximately $1.5 million in loans through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) that the HOA was not entitled to receive due to its status as a 501(c)(4) organization.  The HOA reportedly will pay $2,037,451 to resolve the allegations.  Of that amount, $244,494 will go to Wade Riner—the relator who initiated the action by filing a complaint under seal pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA).  According to the Tribune’s reporting, Riner has filed dozens of similar FCA suits across the country.

On October 11, 2023, the Department of Justice announced a $9 million settlement with Victory Automotive Group Inc. (VAG) to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by knowingly providing false information in support of its Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan. This settlement is one of the larger ones to date related to receipt of a PPP loan and one of the first in which affiliation rendered a PPP borrower other than small.

A False Claims Act (FCA) settlement recently announced by the U.S. Department of Justice stands at the intersection of two evolving trends:  DOJ’s increasing focus on cybersecurity lapses by government contractors as part of its Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative, and DOJ policies incentivizing corporations to voluntarily self-disclose violations of federal law.

Although the COVID-19 public health declaration officially ended in May, government investigations of pandemic relief fraud are from over. As observed in a recent report by the Small Business Administration Office of Inspector General, investigations will likely ensue for years to come in light of Congress’s decision to extend the statute of limitations to ten years for pandemic relief fraud.    

On June 27, 2023, the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported its estimate that SBA disbursed over $200 billion of potentially fraudulent COVID relief, including Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) and Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans.  These possibly fraudulent loans represent at least 17% of all EIDL and PPP funds—or 21% of all loans and grants--disbursed.  The SBA OIG estimates that the SBA disbursed $64 billion in potentially fraudulent PPP loans.

On June 16, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court, in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources Inc., held that the Government may seek dismissal of a False Claims Act (“FCA”) qui tam suit over a relator’s objection so long as it intervenes in the litigation, either during the initial seal period or afterward.  The Court also held that, when handling such a motion, district courts should apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 41(a), the rule generally governing voluntary dismissal of suits.  And in a dissent that—in the long run—may end up being more impactful than the Court’s holding, Justice Thomas (joined in a concurring opinion by Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett) questioned the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions themselves.  

On April 3, 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey announced a settlement with a public relations firm to resolve allegations that the New Jersey company violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by receiving a $2 million second-draw loan from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) to which the company was not entitled.  The public relations firm had also sought and received forgiveness for the full amount of the loan.