Will the 11th Circuit rule non-intervened False Claims Act qui tam suits unconstitutional?: Will United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rule holds that the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions violate Article II of the Constitution when the United States declines to intervene in the underlying False Claims Act action and the private relator continues the suit? Before 2028

If United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit holds that the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions violate Article II of the Constitution when the United States declines to intervene in the underlying False Claims Act action and the private relator continues the suit in United States ex rel. Clarissa Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., before Jan 1, 2028, then the market resolves to Yes. The ruling must: Be issued by United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in United States ex rel. Clarissa Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., Address the matter described by the specified judgment Be issued through a written order, opinion, judgment, or decision The following do NOT satisfy the Payout Criterion: Oral rulings from the bench unless reduced to a written order Tentative rulings that are not made final Draft opinions that leak but are not officially issued Settlements or voluntary dismissals Administrative or scheduling orders Orders to show cause Minute orders that do not address the substantive issue in the specified judgment For clarity: If the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, that counts as a ruling only if the judgment refers to jurisdiction Sua sponte rulings count if they match the specified judgment Per curiam opinions and summary orders count as rulings If multiple judges issue separate opinions, the majority/plurality opinion controls