The Sixth Circuit Reinforces Its 1994 Decision Affirming the Constitutionality of the False Claims Act
January 20, 2026
Written by Nimish Desai with Lieff Cabraser
On January 9, 2026, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals joined numerous district courts throughout the country in reaffirming the constitutionality of the False Claims Act’s (FCA) whistleblower (called “qui tam”) provisions.
This is the latest chapter in the recent challenges to the constitutionality of the FCA’s qui tam provisions, a topic we’ve written about many times (check out our previous blogs here, here, here, here, and here). In short, prompted by a dissenting opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas,[1] FCA defendants have challenged whistleblower cases as violating Article II of the Constitution. With one exception that is currently on appeal, trial court judges have rejected those challenges.[2] One big reason is that this is not a new issue: over the past few decades, every court of appeals to face the issue has upheld the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions.[3]
The Sixth Circuit is one of those courts. Over thirty years ago, in 1994, the court held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were constitutional in United States ex rel. Taxpayers Against Fraud v. General Elec. Co., 41 F.3d 1032, 1041 (6th Cir. 1994). Nonetheless, in 2025, healthcare provider TriHealth, Inc., which faces a pair of qui tam lawsuits alleging unlawful kickbacks and compensation schemes, challenged the FCA’s qui tam provisions as unconstitutional in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The district court judge rejected the challenge, but gave TriHealth permission to file an early appeal with the Sixth Circuit, citing the lone opinion going the other way as its basis for doing so.
In its decision last week, the Sixth Circuit denied TriHealth’s early appeal. The appellate court specifically noted that its 1994 decision in United States ex rel. Taxpayers Against Fraud v. General Elec. Co. was “controlling precedent from this circuit” that is “binding on later appeals.” Simply put, there was no need to allow TriHealth to appeal an issue that had already been decided.
As we’ve written before, this is the right result and consistent with the opinions of virtually all the district court and appeals court decisions on the issue going back decades. The stakes are high: without the FCA’s whistleblower provisions, government programs and the people they serve – especially patients and soldiers – are put at risk. The Anti-Fraud Coalition is continuing to monitor this issue, including the pending appeal in the Eleventh Circuit, and we will continue to fight hard to make sure that this vitally important law survives into the future.
[1] U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Resources, Inc., et al., 599 U.S. 419 (2023) (Thomas dissenting).
[2] See e.g., U.S. & Indiana ex rel. McCullough & Holden v. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. et al., 2025 WL 2782576 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 30, 2025); Josephs v. Amentum Services, 2025 WL 3223772 (D. Md. Nov. 19, 2025).
[3] U.S. ex rel. Kreindler & Kreindler v. United Techs. Corp., 985 F.2d 1148 (2d Cir. 1993); Riley v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 252 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc); U.S. ex rel. Taxpayers Against Fraud v. Gen. Elec. Co., 41 F.3d 1032 (6th Cir. 1994); U.S. ex rel. Kelly v. Boeing Co., 9 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 1993); U.S. ex rel. Stone v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 282 F.3d 787 (10th Cir. 2002).
