In a move with substantial implications for federal enforcement generally and the False Claims Act (“FCA”) in particular, the U.S. Department of Justice (“the Department”) on September 18, 2026 announced major revisions to two sections of the Justice Manual: (1) Section 1-19.000, which governs the issuance and use of guidance documents; and (2) Section 4-4.111, which governs the Department’s authority to seek dismissal of FCA qui tams. Reverting to the Department’s position in the first Trump Administration, the revisions to Section 1-19.000, as the Department explained, “reinstate[] and build[] upon [the Department]’s 2017 policy that sub-regulatory guidance cannot impose legal obligations beyond those established by statute or regulation.” And the revisions to Section 4-4.111 provide that the Department will evaluate every FCA qui tam for potential dismissal by the Department under 31 U.S.C. section 3730(c)(2)(A). The Department framed the changes as strengthening its fight against fraud through clearer standards that promote fair and effective enforcement.
https://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Kristin Graham Koehlerhttps://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngKristin Graham Koehler2026-09-21 12:02:472026-09-21 12:02:47U.S. Department of Justice Announces Major Justice Manual Revisions on Sub-Regulatory Guidance and Dismissals of FCA Qui Tams
Earlier this week, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a $25 million settlement with three Accenture entities to resolve allegations that they violated the FCA by engaging in conduct DOJ alleges violated Title VII and Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) clause 52.222-26. This is the third settlement—we reported on the first two here and here—reached via DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, which aims to use the FCA to address alleged discrimination by employers that have contracted with the federal government. $11,627,000 of the settlement amount was restitution, suggesting a damages multiplier just above two, which is consistent with the prior two settlements.
https://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Kristin Graham Koehlerhttps://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngKristin Graham Koehler2026-09-16 09:53:532026-09-16 09:53:53DOJ Announces Largest Settlement Yet in Drive to Use the FCA to Target Alleged Employment Discrimination
In a landmark decision in Zafirov, the Eleventh Circuit yesterday rejected the argument that the FCA’s qui tam mechanism violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Encouraged by concurring and dissenting opinions in which three Supreme Court Justices have recently questioned qui tams’ constitutionality—opinions on which we reported here—FCA defendants are pressing challenges under the Appointments Clause, Take Care Clause, and Vesting Clause. The district court in Zafirov, on which we previously reported here, held that FCA qui tams violate Article II’s Appointments Clause because relators supposedly qualify as “Officers of the United States” and thus must be (but are not) presidentially appointed. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. Aligning itself instead with all the other Circuits to address FCA constitutionality, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that relators are not “Officers of the United States” because they do not occupy a continuing position established by law.
https://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Kristin Graham Koehlerhttps://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngKristin Graham Koehler2026-09-02 10:37:082026-09-02 10:37:08Eleventh Circuit Rejects Appointments Clause Challenge to Qui Tam Mechanism
On August 26, 2026, the Department of Justice announced a $541.5 million settlement with a Florida-based provider group serving beneficiaries in the retirement community to resolve allegations that the group violated the False Claims Act by submitting invalid diagnosis codes as part of the Medicare Advantage (“MA”) program. The settlement is the next in DOJ’s intensified enforcement focus on the MA program, which we have previously covered here and here.
Earlier this week, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a $21.5 million settlement agreement with five Deloitte entities to resolve allegations that they violated the FCA by engaging in conduct DOJ alleges violated Title VII and Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) clause 52.222-26. Guided by three still-effective executive orders, on which we have reported here and here, the Trump Administration is using the FCA and a variety of other tools, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, in a broad, cross-agency enforcement initiative focused on alleged discrimination and touching companies in every industry.
https://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Kristin Graham Koehlerhttps://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngKristin Graham Koehler2026-08-28 11:43:552026-08-28 11:45:40DOJ Announces Second Settlement Resolving FCA Allegations Based on Employment Discrimination
Earlier this month, the Second Circuit issued a notable decision on a rare FCA topic—whether a request to the government seeks “property,” such that the request falls within the FCA’s definition of a “claim.” The Second Circuit determined that a request inducing the federal government to issue fishing endorsements permitting collection of wild fish did not constitute an FCA “claim” because wild fish are not “property.”
https://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Jaime L.M. Joneshttps://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJaime L.M. Jones2026-08-17 09:55:052026-08-17 09:55:05Second Circuit Clarifies Scope of “Property” that an FCA “Claim” May Seek
On August 5, 2026, DOJ announced a $5.15 million settlement with a Taiwanese light-emitting diode (“LED”) manufacturer and its Texas-based subsidiary to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), the common law, and the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, that the companies knowingly failed to pay additional tariffs on Chinese-origin LEDs imported into the United States. The claims stem from a qui tam suit filed by a former employee. See United States ex rel. Wang v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. TDC-21-cv-1607 (D. Md.). As we reported here and here, this settlement is the latest example of DOJ’s push to target trade fraud through its Trade Fraud Task Force.
https://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Kristin Graham Koehlerhttps://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngKristin Graham Koehler2026-08-11 12:49:152026-08-11 12:49:15DOJ’s $5.15 Million FCA Settlement Reinforces Focus on Tariff and Customs Compliance
On August 3, 2026, DOJ announced a $14.1 million settlement with a management services organization (“MSO”) for primary care groups to resolve allegations that the organization violated the False Claims Act by causing inaccurate diagnosis codes to be submitted to the Medicare Advantage (“MA”) program. The allegations were included in a qui tam suit filed by a whistleblower who worked for two Medicare Advantage Organizations (“MAOs”). See United States ex rel. Karen Bowers v. Complete Health Partners, Inc., Pharos Capital Group, LLC, Viva Health Inc., and BlueCross and Blue Shield of Alabama, No. 3:22-cv-463 (M.D. Fla.). This is the latest in a string of MA-related FCA resolutions; alleged fraud on the MA program continues to be a top area of focus for DOJ, as we previously reported here.
U.S. Department of Justice Announces Major Justice Manual Revisions on Sub-Regulatory Guidance and Dismissals of FCA Qui Tams
In a move with substantial implications for federal enforcement generally and the False Claims Act (“FCA”) in particular, the U.S. Department of Justice (“the Department”) on September 18, 2026 announced major revisions to two sections of the Justice Manual: (1) Section 1-19.000, which governs the issuance and use of guidance documents; and (2) Section 4-4.111, which governs the Department’s authority to seek dismissal of FCA qui tams. Reverting to the Department’s position in the first Trump Administration, the revisions to Section 1-19.000, as the Department explained, “reinstate[] and build[] upon [the Department]’s 2017 policy that sub-regulatory guidance cannot impose legal obligations beyond those established by statute or regulation.” And the revisions to Section 4-4.111 provide that the Department will evaluate every FCA qui tam for potential dismissal by the Department under 31 U.S.C. section 3730(c)(2)(A). The Department framed the changes as strengthening its fight against fraud through clearer standards that promote fair and effective enforcement.
(more…)
Kristin Graham Koehler
Washington, D.C.
kkoehler@sidley.com
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaime.jones@sidley.com
Lisa H. Miller
Washington, D.C.
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Kyle J. Fiet
Washington, D.C.
kfiet@sidley.com
H. Boyd Greene IV
Washington, D.C.
bgreene@sidley.com
Kenneth G. Coffin
Dallas
kenneth.coffin@sidley.com
Joseph R. LoCascio
Chicago
joseph.locascio@sidley.com
Lauren E. McBride
Chicago
lmcbride@sidley.com
DOJ Announces Largest Settlement Yet in Drive to Use the FCA to Target Alleged Employment Discrimination
Earlier this week, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a $25 million settlement with three Accenture entities to resolve allegations that they violated the FCA by engaging in conduct DOJ alleges violated Title VII and Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) clause 52.222-26. This is the third settlement—we reported on the first two here and here—reached via DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, which aims to use the FCA to address alleged discrimination by employers that have contracted with the federal government. $11,627,000 of the settlement amount was restitution, suggesting a damages multiplier just above two, which is consistent with the prior two settlements.
(more…)
Kristin Graham Koehler
Washington, D.C.
kkoehler@sidley.com
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaime.jones@sidley.com
Kyle J. Fiet
Washington, D.C.
kfiet@sidley.com
Joseph R. LoCascio
Chicago
joseph.locascio@sidley.com
Eleventh Circuit Rejects Appointments Clause Challenge to Qui Tam Mechanism
In a landmark decision in Zafirov, the Eleventh Circuit yesterday rejected the argument that the FCA’s qui tam mechanism violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Encouraged by concurring and dissenting opinions in which three Supreme Court Justices have recently questioned qui tams’ constitutionality—opinions on which we reported here—FCA defendants are pressing challenges under the Appointments Clause, Take Care Clause, and Vesting Clause. The district court in Zafirov, on which we previously reported here, held that FCA qui tams violate Article II’s Appointments Clause because relators supposedly qualify as “Officers of the United States” and thus must be (but are not) presidentially appointed. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. Aligning itself instead with all the other Circuits to address FCA constitutionality, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that relators are not “Officers of the United States” because they do not occupy a continuing position established by law.
(more…)
Kristin Graham Koehler
Washington, D.C.
kkoehler@sidley.com
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaime.jones@sidley.com
Kwaku A. Akowuah
Washington, D.C.
kakowuah@sidley.com
Joshua J. Fougere
Washington, D.C.
jfougere@sidley.com
Joseph R. LoCascio
Chicago
joseph.locascio@sidley.com
DOJ Continues Medicare Advantage Enforcement Focus with $541.5 Million Settlement
On August 26, 2026, the Department of Justice announced a $541.5 million settlement with a Florida-based provider group serving beneficiaries in the retirement community to resolve allegations that the group violated the False Claims Act by submitting invalid diagnosis codes as part of the Medicare Advantage (“MA”) program. The settlement is the next in DOJ’s intensified enforcement focus on the MA program, which we have previously covered here and here.
(more…)
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaime.jones@sidley.com
Matt Bergs
Chicago
mbergs@sidley.com
Lauren E. McBride
Chicago
lmcbride@sidley.com
DOJ Announces Second Settlement Resolving FCA Allegations Based on Employment Discrimination
Earlier this week, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a $21.5 million settlement agreement with five Deloitte entities to resolve allegations that they violated the FCA by engaging in conduct DOJ alleges violated Title VII and Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) clause 52.222-26. Guided by three still-effective executive orders, on which we have reported here and here, the Trump Administration is using the FCA and a variety of other tools, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, in a broad, cross-agency enforcement initiative focused on alleged discrimination and touching companies in every industry.
(more…)
Kristin Graham Koehler
Washington, D.C.
kkoehler@sidley.com
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaime.jones@sidley.com
H. Boyd Greene IV
Washington, D.C.
bgreene@sidley.com
Kyle J. Fiet
Washington, D.C.
kfiet@sidley.com
Joseph R. LoCascio
Chicago
joseph.locascio@sidley.com
Second Circuit Clarifies Scope of “Property” that an FCA “Claim” May Seek
Earlier this month, the Second Circuit issued a notable decision on a rare FCA topic—whether a request to the government seeks “property,” such that the request falls within the FCA’s definition of a “claim.” The Second Circuit determined that a request inducing the federal government to issue fishing endorsements permitting collection of wild fish did not constitute an FCA “claim” because wild fish are not “property.”
(more…)
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaime.jones@sidley.com
Kwaku A. Akowuah
Washington, D.C.
kakowuah@sidley.com
Joseph R. LoCascio
Chicago
joseph.locascio@sidley.com
DOJ’s $5.15 Million FCA Settlement Reinforces Focus on Tariff and Customs Compliance
On August 5, 2026, DOJ announced a $5.15 million settlement with a Taiwanese light-emitting diode (“LED”) manufacturer and its Texas-based subsidiary to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), the common law, and the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, that the companies knowingly failed to pay additional tariffs on Chinese-origin LEDs imported into the United States. The claims stem from a qui tam suit filed by a former employee. See United States ex rel. Wang v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. TDC-21-cv-1607 (D. Md.). As we reported here and here, this settlement is the latest example of DOJ’s push to target trade fraud through its Trade Fraud Task Force.
(more…)
Kristin Graham Koehler
Washington, D.C.
kkoehler@sidley.com
Ted Murphy
Washington, D.C.
ted.murphy@sidley.com
Craig Francis Dukin
Washington, D.C.
cdukin@sidley.com
Aaron M. Applebaum
Washington, D.C.
aaron.applebaum@sidley.com
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaime.jones@sidley.com
Lisa H. Miller
Washington, D.C.
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
Kenneth G. Coffin
Dallas
kenneth.coffin@sidley.com
Anna M. Schmitt
Chicago
anna.schmitt@sidley.com
$14.1 Million FCA Settlement Underscores Medicare Advantage Coding Scrutiny
On August 3, 2026, DOJ announced a $14.1 million settlement with a management services organization (“MSO”) for primary care groups to resolve allegations that the organization violated the False Claims Act by causing inaccurate diagnosis codes to be submitted to the Medicare Advantage (“MA”) program. The allegations were included in a qui tam suit filed by a whistleblower who worked for two Medicare Advantage Organizations (“MAOs”). See United States ex rel. Karen Bowers v. Complete Health Partners, Inc., Pharos Capital Group, LLC, Viva Health Inc., and BlueCross and Blue Shield of Alabama, No. 3:22-cv-463 (M.D. Fla.). This is the latest in a string of MA-related FCA resolutions; alleged fraud on the MA program continues to be a top area of focus for DOJ, as we previously reported here.
(more…)
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaime.jones@sidley.com
Matt Bergs
Chicago
mbergs@sidley.com
Anna M. Schmitt
Chicago
anna.schmitt@sidley.com
Categories
Courts
Archives