Eleventh Circuit Reverses Course: False Claims Act Whistleblower Provisions Are Constitutional After All

September 02, 2026 | Posted By: Sean Estes

For more than a year, whistleblowers, defense contractors, healthcare providers, and government fraud lawyers have been watching one case out of Tampa. On September 1, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals answered the question everyone was asking: no, the False Claims Act’s whistleblower provisions do not violate the Constitution. The Court’s decision in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC reverses a ruling that had threatened to upend one of the government’s most effective fraud recovery tools, and it restores the path forward for whistleblowers in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.

We have covered this case as it developed, first in The False Claims Act Is Changing: What Whistleblowers Need to Know Right Now and again in DOJ Reports $6.8 Billion in False Claims Act Recoveries. This post explains what the Eleventh Circuit actually decided, why it matters, and what it means if you are considering blowing the whistle on fraud against the government.

How We Got Here

The False Claims Act allows the government to sue those who defraud federal programs, and it also allows private citizens with knowledge of the fraud, called relators, to bring suit on the government’s behalf. These are known as qui tam cases. A successful relator can recover a percentage of what the government collects, which is why the False Claims Act has become one of the most powerful anti-fraud tools on the books. The Department of Justice recovered $6.8 billion in False Claims Act settlements and judgments in fiscal year 2025 alone, much of it from qui tam cases.

In 2019, Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam suit against her former employer, Florida Medical Associates (doing business as VIPcare), along with Physician Partners, Anion Technologies, Freedom Health, and Optimum Healthcare. She alleged the companies knowingly submitted false diagnosis codes to Medicare Advantage plans to inflate what the government paid them. The case proceeded for years, but in February 2024 the defendants moved to dismiss on a new theory: that the qui tam provisions themselves are unconstitutional.

In September 2024, the district court agreed. It held that relators like Dr. Zafirov are effectively “officers of the United States” under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, because they exercise significant government authority when they sue on the government’s behalf. Officers of the United States must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, or appointed by a department head. Relators are neither. On that reasoning, the district court dismissed the entire case.

That ruling broke from decades of practice and from every other circuit that had considered the question. It also raised the stakes for every pending qui tam case nationwide in the event a circuit split allowed this issue to reach the Supreme Court.

What the Eleventh Circuit Held

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. Writing for the panel, Judge Branch explained that an Appointments Clause officer must do two things: exercise significant governmental authority, and occupy a continuing position established by law. The Court found it unnecessary to decide the first question because the second one resolves the case. Relators, the cCourt held, do not occupy a continuing position.

The opinion walks through three reasons.

1. First, a relator’s tenure is occasional and temporary. A relator’s role lasts only as long as a single case, and nothing requires a relator to maintain any ongoing relationship with the government.
2. Second, a relator does not receive a continuing emolument, meaning steady government compensation. A relator is paid a contingent share of a judgment or settlement only if the case succeeds, much like the pension surgeon and customs appraiser the Supreme Court held were not officers in nineteenth century cases the panel relied on heavily.
3. Third, and most importantly to the Court, a relator’s duties are personal. If a relator drops a case or dies, no one else steps into that relator’s shoes. A personal representative may continue the same relator’s claim, but the position itself is not handed off to a successor the way a government office would be.

The Court rejected the defendants’ argument that the False Claims Act creates a continuous “office of relator” that exists independent of any one person. As the panel put it, that term does not appear anywhere in the statute, and no case has ever held that an unfilled position becomes a continuing office simply because someone could eventually fill it.

Because relators are not officers of the United States, the Eleventh Circuit held the qui tam provisions do not violate the Appointments Clause. It vacated the dismissal and sent the case back to the district court to address the defendants’ remaining Take Care Clause and Vesting Clause arguments, which the district court never reached the first time around.

Why This Matters Going Forward

This decision brings the Eleventh Circuit in line with the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, all of which have already upheld the qui tam provisions against similar challenges. That kind of consensus matters, both for the many qui tam cases pending in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama federal courts, and for the broader legal landscape. Defendants in FCA cases have increasingly raised these constitutional arguments as a way to get cases dismissed outright rather than litigated on the facts. This ruling takes one of their strongest available arguments off the table in this Circuit.

That said, the fight is not entirely over. The district court still must address the Take Care Clause and Vesting Clause challenges on remand, and several Supreme Court justices have flagged interest in these questions in recent concurring opinions. Defendants may also seek further review. For now, though, whistleblowers with knowledge of Medicare fraud, defense contractor fraud, or other fraud against government programs can continue to bring qui tam cases in the Eleventh Circuit with confidence that the tool remains available to them.

Talk to Us About a Potential Whistleblower Claim

If you have inside knowledge of fraud against Medicare, Medicaid, a federal contract, or any other government program, this decision is good news. The False Claims Act remains a viable, powerful way to hold wrongdoers accountable and to be compensated for coming forward. Our whistleblower and False Claims Act attorneys evaluate qui tam cases nationwide. Contact Hoyer Law Group at www.hoyerlawgroup.com/contact/ or call (844) 531-0082 for a confidential evaluation.

This blog is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified attorney.