On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Trump v. Slaughter. On its face, the case asked a simple question: Did President Trump act lawfully when, shortly after taking office in 2025, he fired the two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission? Much more was on the line, however
The Third Circuit recently heard oral argument on the ongoing question regarding the constitutionality of the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act (FCA). The issue arose in United States ex rel. Penelow v. Janssen Products, LP, No. 25-1818 (3d Cir.) — a non-intervened qui tam that went to trial and ultimately led
Mortgage lenders and other entities submitting claims for payment to the federal government should take note of recent case law from the Ninth Circuit emphasizing how private litigants continue to drive litigation under the False Claims Act (FCA), even when the government shows little initiative to proceed (or, in this case, even moves to dismiss).
In the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., three justices expressed concern that the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions violate Article II of the Constitution and called for a case presenting that question. Justice Clarence Thomas penned a dissent explaining that private relators wield
The phrase “no good deed goes unpunished” represents the figurative irony that results when one seeking to help gets penalized instead. United States v. Moore, a recent decision from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, reflects the court’s concern that the expression had been interpreted as a literal directive by a prosecutor in
How long can the government keep your property after lawfully seizing it? According to the D.C. Circuit in a recent decision, as long as the continued possession is still reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This decision furthers a split among circuit courts and portends how the text, history, and tradition method might influence Fourth Amendment
On December 27, 2022, the Second Circuit called into question the government’s theory of insider trading of confidential government agency information, potentially undercutting the DOJ’s enforcement of various white-collar crimes.
The panel tossed the convictions of four individuals found guilty of securities fraud, wire fraud, and theft of government property for their coordination to trade