For over 160 years, the False Claims Act’s (FCA) qui tam provision has allowed individuals to bring claims on behalf of the federal government in exchange for a portion of the recovery. On Sept. 30, 2024, a Middle District of Florida court ruled the qui tam provision unconstitutional, finding that the relator—the party that brings the claim on behalf of the government—wields executive power and duties akin to an “officer of the United States” and therefore must be appointed pursuant to the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. Because the relator was not so appointed, her suit on behalf of the government violates the Constitution and must be dismissed.

The decision in Zafirov marks the first successful Article II challenge to the qui tam provision, but it is not entirely a surprise. Three members of the U.S. Supreme Court—Justices Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh—recently telegraphed their willingness to examine the constitutionality of the qui tam provision under the appointments clause. The decision comes as President-Elect Trump’s administration touts deregulation and downsizing the federal government. This article discusses the context, this decision and implications for future FCA cases.