During the U.S. Supreme Court's last term, in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, three justices noted that there are "substantial arguments" that the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions do not conform with Article II of the Constitution and suggested that the court consider their constitutionality in an appropriate case. Through the qui tam provisions, which have transformed the FCA's broad language and stimulated over-enforcement, Congress has dispersed power from the executive branch to private persons acting not in the public interest but rather in their own self-interest. Given case law developments, now is the time for the court to consider this issue and rule that the qui tam provisions are unconstitutional.

Under the FCA, private citizens (known as relators) can file suits on behalf of the government (known as qui tam actions). The Department of Justice (DOJ) may intervene or decline to pursue a lawsuit brought by a relator. Relators may receive a substantial bounty from a recovery.