The False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729–32.

Modern Legislative History of the FCA:

• Legislative materials for the 1986 FCA amendment p S11244 (Grassley)
• Committee on the Judiciary, “The False Claims Act of 1985,” S. Rep. 99-345, 99th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1986). The major interpretive tool for understanding the 1986 amendments to the FCA that revitalized the law
• Committee on the Judiciary, “The False Claims Act Correction Act of 2008,” S. Rep. 110-507, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2008)

Although the 2008 Senate Report concerns the False Claims Act Corrections Act, a law that was never passed by Congress, in 2009–10 many of its provisions were approved (either in whole, in part, or in a modified form) and signed into law:

• Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, Public Law No. 111-21, § 4 (May 20, 2009)
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law No. 111-148, § 10104(j)(2) (Mar. 23, 2010)
• Dodd-Frank Act, Public Law No. 111-203, § 1079A (July 21, 2010).

The 2008 Senate Report is an excellent starting point for understanding these three amendments.

• Committee on the Judiciary, “Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009,” S. Rep. 111-10, 111th Cong. 1st Sess. (2009) (legislative history for the 2009 FCA amendments)
• Extension Remarks by Congressman Berman, Congressional Record, pp, E1296–97 (June 3, 2009)

2023 Supreme Court Decision on Dismissing False Claims Act Case Over the Objection of a Whistleblower or Relator:

• U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.

Decisions interpreting the original intent of the FCA:

• U.S. ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537 (1943)
• United States v. Griswold, 24 F. 361 (D. Ore. 1885)

Decisions interpreting the 1986 amendments:

• Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000) (FCA is constitutional)
• Rockwell International Corp. v. U.S. ex rel. Stone, 549 U.S. 457 (2007) (limiting recoveries by relators – partially reversed by 2010 amendment to FCA)
• Cook County v. U.S. ex rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119 (2003) (municipal corporations covered under FCA)
• KBR v. U.S. ex rel. Carter, 135 S.Ct. 1970 (2015) (clarifying statute of limitations and original source standards)
• Universal Health Services v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, 136 S.Ct. 1989 (2016)
• State Farm v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby, 137 S.Ct. 436 (2016) (sanctions for violating seal)

The broad coverage of employers and contractors under the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision was explained in U.S. ex rel. Bias v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, 816 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2016).

Articles explaining the FCA and qui tam:

•  “The History and Development of Qui Tam,” Wash. U. L. Q. 81 (1972).
• Claire Sylvia, “The False Claims Act: Fraud against the Government,” Thomson/West (Danvers, MA, 2004).
• Joel Hesch, “Understanding the ‘Original Source Exception’ to the False Claims Act’s ‘Public Disclosure Bar’ in Light of the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Rockwell v. United States,” 7 DePaul Bus. & Com. Law Journal 1 (Fall 2008).

Elleta Callahan and Terry Dworkin:

• “Do Good and Get Rich: Financial Incentives for Whistleblowing and the False Claims Act,” 37 Vill. L. Rev. 273 (1992).
• Thomas Harris, “Alternative Remedies & The False Claims Act: Protecting Qui Tam Relators in Light of Government Intervention and Criminal Prosecution Decisions,” 94 Cornell Law Review 1293 (2009)

The U.S. Department of Justice discloses information on FCA recoveries on the web page for the Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch. See DOJ Civil Fraud press releases regarding FCA settlements and judgments. The Civil Frauds web page also has statistics on FCA recoveries and a “primer” outlining basic tenants of the FCA.