The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that the False Claims Act’s qui tam provision does not violate the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The unanimous panel issued its decision on September 1, 2026, in the case United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates LLC, reversing a lower court ruling.
The appeals court vacated a September 2024 order from Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which had declared the provision unconstitutional.
Judge Mizelle had been the first federal judge in the country to find the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions unconstitutional, making her ruling a landmark and widely watched decision.
The district court had reasoned that FCA relators exercise significant authority reserved to the executive branch, including bringing enforcement actions on behalf of the United States and seeking recovery for the U.S. Treasury.
The lower court also noted that relators choose which claims to pursue, which theories to raise, which defendants to sue, and which arguments to make on appeal, with those choices capable of binding the United States through precedent.
The Eleventh Circuit rejected that reasoning entirely, holding that “relators are not officers of the United States subject to the Appointments Clause” and remanding the case to the district court.
With this ruling, the Eleventh Circuit has now joined the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, all of which have previously held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions do not violate the Appointments Clause.
That alignment among five circuits eliminates, for now, the prospect of a circuit split on this specific constitutional question, though significant uncertainty remains around the broader legal landscape.
Both the district court and the Eleventh Circuit declined to rule on defendants’ separate arguments that the qui tam provision violated the Take Care Clause and the Vesting Clause, leaving those questions open.
The U.S. Department of Justice had intervened in numerous similar cases nationwide following Judge Mizelle’s original ruling, defending the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions or filing statements of interest.
The False Claims Act’s qui tam mechanism has for decades empowered private individuals, known as relators, to bring fraud claims on behalf of the federal government, making it a central tool in combating government contractor fraud.
A petition to the U.S. Supreme Court is widely expected, and the case may ultimately reach the justices, three of whom have already expressed strong skepticism about the constitutionality of the qui tam provision.
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision restores the FCA’s qui tam mechanism in this case, but the constitutional debate surrounding whistleblower enforcement actions under the statute is far from settled.