FirstAlerts
Regulators & CourtsVersion 2

Eleventh Circuit Holds FCA Qui Tam Provisions Do Not Violate Appointments Clause

The appeals court vacated a district court ruling and remanded for consideration of remaining constitutional arguments.

2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 2, 2026, 3:19 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterUpdated Sep 3, 2026, 7:23 p.m. ET
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the has vacated a district court decision and held that the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act do not violate the Appointments Clause, according to reports by NatLawReview.com. The court remanded the case for consideration of arguments under the Vesting and Take Care Clauses. The case is , identified by NatLawReview.com as . The relator alleged that the defendants, including Florida Medical Associates, LLC and several other providers and Medicare Advantage Organizations, acted in concert to artificially increase risk adjustment scores of Medicare Advantage enrollees, thereby increasing capitated payments from the government. The district court had agreed with the defendants' assertion that the FCA's qui tam provisions violated the Appointments Clause and dismissed the case. The reversed that ruling. The defendants had also asserted violations of the Vesting and Take Care Clauses, which the appeals court directed the district court to consider on remand.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 2, 2026, 3:19 p.m. ETFirst report

    11th Circuit Rules False Claims Act Qui Tam Provisions Constitutional

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has vacated a district court decision and held that the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act do not violate the Appointments Clause, according to a report by the National Law Review.

    The ruling came in the case United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC. The appellate court's decision reverses the lower court's ruling, which had found the provisions unconstitutional.

    The case remains open as it continues to develop.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 23 Sept 2026, 23:23current

    Updated to reflect the Eleventh Circuit's holding and remand, and removed the inaccurate statement that the matter is at the adjudicated liable stage.

  2. Version 12 Sept 2026, 19:22

    First published.

  3. Version 12 Sept 2026, 19:19current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.