According to Eli Lilly, the qui tam “structure—unaccountable and uncontrollable private prosecutors pursuing their own ends in the name of the United States—is fundamentally incompatible with our Constitution.”
Eli Lilly filed a Supreme Court petition challenging the constitutionality of the False Claims Act’s (FCA) qui tam provisions. The company, seeking to overturn the Seventh Circuit’s decision affirming a $183 million jury verdict, argued that the relator is “a private bounty hunter who is not appointed by, removable by, or accountable to the President in any way, and who is (by Congress’s design) motivated far more by personal profit than by any desire for regulatory clarity.” While three Supreme Court justices have recently questioned the constitutionality of the qui tam device, the petition faces an uphill battle, as the Seventh Circuit did not rule on this issue and noted in its order denying rehearing en banc that Eli Lilly “forfeited if not waived its constitutional argument” (U.S. ex rel. Streck v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 25-1126 (U.S. March 23, 2026)).
For decades, courts consistently rejected arguments that the qui tam statute violates the Appointments Clause (U.S. Const. art. II, § 2). However, the tide started shifting in June 2023 with Justice Thomas’s dissent in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., which argued, “There are substantial arguments that the qui tam device is inconsistent with Article II and that private relators may...
Welcome to Reality Check, NewsGuard’s nonpartisan newsletter that tracks the false claims and conspiracy theories that shape our world — and who’s behind them. Please support us by becoming a premi...