Trick or Treat? What You Need to Know About a First-of-its-Kind Decision Declaring FCA Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional

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.

How did Judge Mizelle reach this bold new conclusion? What does this mean for relators, defendants, and government attorneys currently engaged in FCA litigation? And what does it mean for the future of qui tam suits? Crowell attorneys analyze the Zafirov decision and comment on its implications for FCA practice in a "Feature Comment" published in The Government Contractor.