1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Eighth Circuit Applies Escobar's Materiality Standard

Eighth Circuit Applies Escobar's Materiality Standard

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.24.16

In U.S. ex rel. Miller v. Weston Educ. Inc. (Oct. 19, 2016), the Eighth Circuit became the first appellate court to apply the materiality standard recently articulated by the Supreme Court in Escobar (discussion of Escobar available here), holding that defendant’s promise to keep accurate grade and attendance records was material in inducing the government to enter into an agreement under the Higher Education Act. The court rejected defendant’s argument that no individual false record caused payment by the government, reasoning instead that the false promise to keep accurate records was material based on the express regulatory conditions of participation, their reasonable importance to payment, and evidence that the government had terminated other institutions that falsified similar records.

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