In a recent decision, the 11th Circuit reversed a lower court’s blockbuster ruling holding that the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act violate the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The appellate court left other key constitutional questions unanswered and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings, leaving the door open for further judicial consideration of the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions. The Eleventh Circuit’s September 1, 2026, opinion can be found here.
Background Regarding the False Claims Act’s Qui Tam Provisions
The False Claims Act is a civil-war era federal statute that imposes liability on individuals and companies that defraud the federal government. The statute includes so-called qui tam provisions that allow private individuals not affiliated with the government – known as “relators” – to file actions on behalf of the government. If the relator prevails on his or her claim, they can receive a portion of the damages recovered (typically from 15% to 30%).
The phrase qui tam itself is an abbreviation of the longer Latin phrase “qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur,” which translates to “who sues on behalf of the King as well as for himself.” Consistent with that structure, modern FCA enforcement has relied heavily on private relators. According to Department of Justice statistics, between 1986 and 2025, more than 76% of FCA actions were initiated as qui tam suits, and aggregate relator...
In a 2017 piece in The New York Times, voting expert Ari Berman wrote, “The Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed tactics that prevented blacks, Hispanics and other minority groups from voting. But fo...