Eleventh Circuit Rejects Appointments Clause Challenge to FCA Qui Tam Law
A federal appeals court has reversed a district court ruling that found the False Claims Act's whistleblower provisions unconstitutional, but remanded the case for consideration of other constitutional challenges.
The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has reversed a district court's dismissal of a qui tam action, holding that the False Claims Act's (FCA) provisions allowing private whistleblowers, or relators, to sue on behalf of the government do not violate the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution.
The ruling preserves the primary mechanism for FCA enforcement for now in the Eleventh Circuit, aligning it with other circuits that have rejected this specific constitutional attack. However, the decision was narrow, focusing only on whether relators are "officers of the United States." A successful constitutional challenge to the FCA's qui tam framework, which several Supreme Court justices have signaled interest in, would fundamentally alter the government enforcement and white-collar defense landscape for clients in sectors like healthcare and government contracting.
The appellate panel remanded the case, United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates LLC, for the district court to consider outstanding challenges under the Take Care and Vesting Clauses. With similar appeals pending in at least five other circuits, counsel for defendants should continue to preserve these constitutional arguments, as the issue appears likely to eventually reach the Supreme Court.