This week, DOJ announced the results of its 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, which involved charges against 455 defendants, including 90 medical professionals, in connection with alleged schemes involving […]
On June 18, 2026, DOJ announced a settlement with LOGZONE Inc., a defense contractor, to pay $507,144 to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act through its failure to satisfy cybersecurity requirements in its contracts with the Department of the Navy (“the Navy”). This settlement involves yet another coordinated enforcement effort through the recently created Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, previously reported on here and here. DOJ reached this settlement with assistance from the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Army, and the Defense Contract Management Agency (“DCMA”). This settlement underscores cybersecurity compliance as a focus of FCA enforcement.
It is not business as usual at DOJ. In the latest announcement related to the Department’s efforts to fight alleged fraud, on May 27, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate issued a memorandum directing DOJ’s Civil Division and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to accelerate the review of qui tams alleging fraud against federally funded state-administered benefits programs, including programs involving housing, food assistance, medical care, and cash assistance. The memorandum, titled “Accelerating Review and Enhancing Enforcement in Benefits Fraud Matters,” implements President Trump’s March 2026 Executive Order establishing the “Task Force to Eliminate Fraud,” which we reported on here, and which directed the Department to take appropriate action to promote “meritorious” qui tams and to complete investigations sooner, including within the 60-day statutory period.
On May 15, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Texas Attorney General announced the first publicly disclosed settlement arising from the federal government’s nationwide investigation into gender-affirming care for minors. The resolution with Texas Children’s Hospital reflects a coordinated federal-state enforcement approach grounded in False Claims Act (“FCA”) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) theories, alongside significant non-monetary remedies extending beyond traditional healthcare fraud settlements. In addition to a substantial monetary payment, the agreements impose operational, clinical, and governance-related obligations that may signal how enforcement authorities intend to pursue similar matters going forward.
This blog post examines the settlement terms, the broader federal policy and enforcement framework underlying the investigation, and the implications for healthcare providers and life sciences companies navigating areas of aligned federal and state enforcement focus. Click to read more about the resolution and what it may signal for future DOJ and state attorney general enforcement activity.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport may create a new strategic consideration for recipients of state attorney general civil investigative demands (CIDs). In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that a nonprofit could pursue a Section 1983 challenge to a New Jersey Attorney General subpoena in federal court based on alleged First Amendment associational harms arising from compelled donor disclosure.
Although the Court emphasized the narrow nature of its holding, the decision potentially opens the door to federal court challenges where state attorney general CIDs implicate donor anonymity, expressive association, advocacy activities, or other constitutional interests. The ruling also reflects the Court’s continued willingness to recognize Article III standing based on alleged chilling effects tied to First Amendment rights.
Our latest post examines the decision, the arguments raised by a coalition of state attorneys general, and what the ruling may mean for companies, nonprofits, trade associations, and other recipients of state attorney general investigative demands.
On April 30, 2026, the Department of Justice’s Civil Division announced the Fraud Oversight through Careful Use of Statistics, or FOCUS, initiative. The initiative is aimed at a fast-growing category of False Claims Act relators that exploded in the aftermath of the pandemic and the Paycheck Protection Program: “data miners” who analyze publicly available government data to identify potential fraud and then file qui tam complaints. DOJ’s message to these non-traditional relators is twofold. First, the Department seems to have accepted that data-miner relators are here to stay, and so has invited sophisticated, well-supported data analysis that can help identify fraud that might otherwise go undetected. But second, DOJ intends to prioritize data-miner relators who can demonstrate meaningful pre-filing diligence, analytical rigor, familiarity with the governing program rules, and legally sufficient allegations.
For companies in sectors with substantial government funding or reimbursement, including healthcare, life sciences, defense, education, technology, and other government contractors, the practical takeaway is straightforward. Companies should evaluate their own publicly available data with the same skepticism and sophistication that a relator, short seller, or agency analyst might apply. Leveraging enhanced analytics and AI to match and front-run potential data miner-driven qui tams will allow companies to quickly assess the likely source of government interest, and explain it.
The Trump Administration is advancing a coordinated effort to tie federal funding and contracting eligibility more closely to its interpretation of antidiscrimination law. Recent Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) guidance directs agencies to incorporate a new contract clause prohibiting practices the Administration deems discriminatory, while proposed revisions to System for Award Management (SAM) certifications would require recipients of federal grants and other financial assistance to affirm compliance with similar standards. These developments build on earlier Department of Justice guidance outlining the types of conduct the Administration views as unlawful and are reinforced by a recent False Claims Act (FCA) settlement signaling a willingness to pursue enforcement in this area. Together, the FAR changes and proposed SAM revisions point to a more integrated enforcement framework—one that expands certification and disclosure obligations, links compliance more directly to FCA materiality, and increases oversight and reporting expectations. For federal contractors and grant recipients, the result is a heightened risk environment requiring careful reassessment of policies, internal controls, and subcontractor compliance in anticipation of greater scrutiny from both contracting agencies and enforcement authorities.