Eleventh Circuit Rules FCA Relators Aren’t 'Officers of the United States'
The Eleventh Circuit ruled qui tam relators aren’t Officers under the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause.
Why it matters: Why it matters: This decision affects whistleblower litigation strategy and government enforcement, guiding firms handling False Claims Act cases on constitutional boundaries and relators’ legal standing.
- The ruling came on Sept. 1, 2026, in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC.
- It overturns a 2024 Middle District of Florida ruling that dismissed the case over Appointments Clause concerns.
- The court applied Lucia v. SEC’s two-part test, finding relators don’t hold continuing government positions.
- The case was remanded for further review of other constitutional claims involving the Vesting and Take Care Clauses.
On September 1, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals clarified that qui tam relators under the False Claims Act (FCA) are not "Officers of the United States," and thus not subject to the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The decision in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC reversed a 2024 ruling from the Middle District of Florida, which had dismissed relator Clarissa Zafirov's lawsuit on constitutional grounds.
The court applied the two-part test from Lucia v. SEC, concluding that relators do not occupy a "continuing position established by law," nor receive a government salary. Their role is personal and temporary, connected to a specific case rather than a continuing government office.
King & Spalding notes, "The Eleventh Circuit's decision was limited to the qui tam provisions' constitutionality under the Appointments Clause." Meanwhile, Ropes & Gray LLP emphasizes that "the reversal is a significant milestone, but it does not end the constitutional inquiry." Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court to resolve other constitutional arguments related to Article II’s Vesting and Take Care Clauses, which remain unsettled.
This ruling aligns with decisions from other circuits rejecting similar Appointments Clause challenges, reinforcing the constitutional footing of FCA's qui tam provisions. Given that 1,297 qui tam lawsuits were filed in fiscal year 2025 alone, this decision will have significant implications for legal strategy in whistleblower suits and government enforcement actions.
Law firms and corporations involved in FCA litigation should closely monitor subsequent developments, particularly the district court’s review of remaining constitutional challenges, as these could further shape the legal landscape for qui tam relators.
By the numbers:
- September 1, 2026 — Date of Eleventh Circuit ruling
- September 2024 — Date of district court's original dismissal
- 1,297 — Qui tam lawsuits filed in fiscal year 2025
Yes, but: While the Eleventh Circuit resolved the Appointments Clause issue, it remanded the case to address other constitutional challenges based on the Vesting and Take Care Clauses, leaving questions unresolved.
What's next: The district court will next evaluate the remaining constitutional challenges to the FCA’s qui tam provisions under Article II’s Vesting and Take Care Clauses.