ImpaCtofzafIrov onthefutureofQuItamaCtIonSunderthefaLSeCLaImSaCt labor & Employment law Section Chairs : AmandaBiondolino – AmandaL . BiondolinoPLLC & RaquelJefferson – PhelpsDunbar
thezafirov decisionmarksasignificant momentinthisongoingdebate , asit challengestheconstitutionalityof quitamactionsthathavebeen instrumentalinrecoveringbillions ofdollarsforthegovernment .
In a landmark decision , United States district Court Judge Kathryn Mizelle ruled in the Middle district of Florida case , United States ex rel Zafirov v . Florida Medical Associates , LLC , that the whistleblower or “ qui tam ” provision of the False Claims Act ( FCA ) violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution . This decision has reignited a long-standing constitutional debate surrounding the FCA , which allows private individuals , known as relators , to file lawsuits on behalf of the United States to combat fraud . The Zafirov case involved allegations of fraud against the federal Medicare Advantage program , with the relator pursuing the case independently after the government declined to intervene . The defendants challenged the constitutionality of the FCA ’ s qui tam provision , arguing that relators exercise powers reserved for officers of the United States , who must be appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause .
The Appointments Clause argument is not new . It first emerged shortly after the FCA was amended in 1986 , with early challenges like United States , ex rel . Stillwell v . Hughes Helicopters , Inc . addressing its constitutionality . The argument gained renewed attention after Justice Clarence Thomas ’ s dissent in United States ex rel . Polansky v . Exec . Health Res ., Inc ., where he contended that the FCA ’ s qui tam provision violates the Appointments Clause . Judge Mizelle ’ s decision echoes this perspective , asserting that relators hold a “ continuing position ” of “ core executive power ” without proper appointment .
Historically , the FCA ’ s qui tam provision has faced multiple constitutional challenges , including those based on the Take Care Clause and Article III standing requirements . The Supreme Court resolved the standing issue in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v . Stevens , affirming that relators have Article III standing . However , the Appointments Clause and Take Care Clause challenges persisted , with several circuit courts ruling against them in the 1990s and early 2000s .
The Zafirov decision marks a significant moment in this ongoing debate , as it challenges the constitutionality of qui tam actions that have been instrumental in recovering billions of dollars for the government . The ruling suggests that relators , by directing litigation and binding the government , exercise executive authority without accountability to the Executive Branch . This interpretation aligns with the views of constitutional originalists like Justice Thomas and Judge Mizelle .
The immediate impact of the Zafirov ruling is limited to the Middle district of Florida , but it
Continuedonpage43
Read and share the Lawyer Magazine in digital format online now at hillsbar . com .
4 2 M A r - A P r 2 0 2 5 | H C B A L A W Y E r