Last week, in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the government may seek dismissal of a False Claims Act (FCA) action over a qui tam relator's objection even if the government initially declined to intervene in the case. In so doing, the Court has made it difficult (if not technically impossible) for relators to continue to litigate an FCA case if the government moves to dismiss. The case is also noteworthy as Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett signaled their openness to considering whether FCA qui tam provisions are even constitutional under Article II.
In 2012, Jesse Polansky brought a qui tam FCA action against Executive Health Resources, alleging that the company overbilled services to Medicare by certifying in-patient services that should have been provided on an outpatient basis. The FCA's qui tam provision allows an individual, called the relator, to bring the action in the name of the government. The FCA then allows the government to choose whether to intervene, and if it does intervene within a specified period at the beginning of the case, it may conduct the case. If the government declines to intervene, the relator conducts the case. In 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A), the FCA also allows the government to unilaterally move to dismiss the case. Here, the government initially declined to intervene in the case against Executive Health Resources and the case progressed into discovery. In 2019, after...
A purported image showing the design of the new identity cards, featuring the Malaysian coat of arms, flag and a digital thumbprint, was shared on Facebook on April 14, 2026. "Said to be the new m...