Trick or Treat? What You Need to Know About a First-of-its-Kind Decision Declaring FCA Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.22.24
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.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
