Aug 92021

Proposed FCA Amendments Blocked from Senate Infrastructure Bill

Brenna E. Jenny, Patricia DeLoatche and Jaime L.M. Jones
, , ,

The recently proposed amendments to the False Claims Act have stalled out for now.  As discussed here and here, these bipartisan proposed amendments—led by Senator Grassley—would have made four changes to the FCA, and most notably, would have radically altered the burden of proof for establishing materiality.

But after making a sudden appearance on Friday in the Senate infrastructure bill, last night those amendments were excluded.  This means that the amendments’ proponents will need to consider other vehicles, particularly “must pass” bills such as the budget resolution.  The Senate is expected to consider amendments to the budget resolution later this week.

We will continue to monitor developments regarding this proposed legislation.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.

Brenna E. Jenny

Washington, D.C.

bjenny@sidley.com

Patricia DeLoatche

Washington, D.C.

pdeloatche@sidley.com

Jaime L.M. Jones

Chicago

jaimejones@sidley.com

You might also like
Chiding DOJ for “Inexcusable” Delay in Deciding to Intervene, Fifth Circuit Makes Notable Determinations on Materiality and Statute of Limitations

Chastising DOJ for asking eighteen times to extend the seal period, the Fifth Circuit recently held that due to its “dilatory conduct,” DOJ could not avail itself of the FCA’s tolling provision.  In the same opinion, the court held that continued reimbursement does not defeat materiality where there are “valid reasons why an agency may continue to pay claims despite allegations of fraud.”

Supreme Court Affirms Broad DOJ Dismissal Authority

On June 16, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, affirming that courts should grant DOJ motions to dismiss over relator objections “in all but the most exceptional cases.”  Prior coverage of this case is here and here.

Supreme Court Mulls Scope of DOJ Dismissal Authority

On December 6, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, which presents the question of whether the government has the authority to dismiss a qui tam suit after initially declining to intervene, and if so, what standard of review applies to the government’s motion to dismiss.  Overall, the lines of questioning suggest that the Court will conclude that the government may dismiss qui tam suits after initially declining to intervene.  However, there was no clear consensus around how to define a judicially enforceable standard for evaluating the government’s dismissal authority.