On September 18, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced revisions to the Justice Manual that strengthen the framework for dismissing qui tam actions filed under the False Claims Act (FCA) that do not serve the interests of the United States. The revised Justice Manual now instructs government attorneys to evaluate whether the government should seek dismissal under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) in every qui tam case and empowers attorneys to engage in an ongoing assessment as litigation progresses. This development—which is especially significant for defendants in FCA qui tam litigation—signals a more proactive government posture toward seeking dismissal of meritless or burdensome qui tam cases.
The FCA is the federal government’s primary civil fraud enforcement statute. It imposes liability on any person who knowingly submits a false claim for payment to the federal government. The FCA’s qui tam provisions allow private individuals—known as “relators” or “whistleblowers”—to file suit on behalf of the United States. After a relator files a qui tam complaint under seal, the government investigates and decides whether to intervene and take over the litigation or to decline intervention, in which case the relator may proceed independently.
Under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A), the government retains the authority to dismiss the action notwithstanding the relator’s objections, provided the relator has been notified of the dismissal motion and the court has given the relator an opportunity to be heard.
In January 2018, the DOJ issued a memorandum authored by then-director of the Civil Fraud Section Michael Granston—commonly known as the “Granston Memorandum”—which encouraged federal attorneys to consider whether the government’s interests would be served by seeking dismissal of qui tam actions at the time of declination. The Granston Memorandum identified seven non-exhaustive factors the government attorney should weigh when considering whether to move to dismiss a qui tam suit.
On September 25, 2018, the DOJ announced the rollout of the updated Justice Manual, including as part of the rollout formal incorporation of the Granston Memorandum into the Justice Manual at section 4-4.111.
The revisions to section 4-4.111 announced last week signal a meaningful shift towards seeking dismissal in qui tam actions.1 The prior version of the section stated that, when evaluating a recommendation to decline intervention, attorneys “should also consider” whether the government’s interests are served by seeking dismissal under § 3730(c)(2)(A). The newly revised version is more forceful on the topic, directing attorneys to “in each case assess” whether the government’s interests are served by seeking dismissal under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A).
The Justice Manual recognizes occasions that may warrant declination but not dismissal where the government concludes that declination “may not equate to the conclusion that a qui tam is meritless.” Notwithstanding this caution, however, the import of the revision clearly is to encourage a more thoughtful analysis of the utility of an ongoing declined qui tam suit.
The DOJ’s revisions also reflect empowerment of government attorneys to revisit and reassess their determination as to dismissal. Under the revised language in the Justice Manual, where the Department concludes at the time of declination that dismissal is not warranted, “the Department may re-evaluate whether dismissal becomes appropriate as the litigation progresses.”
The Justice Manual, having codified the Granston Memorandum factors, provides a “non-exhaustive” list of factors that can serve as a basis for dismissal:
- Curbing meritless qui tams
- Preventing parasitic or opportunistic qui tam actions that duplicate a pre-existing government investigation and add no useful information to the investigation
- Preventing interference with an agency’s policies or the administration of its programs
- Controlling litigation brought on behalf of the United States, in order to protect the Department's litigation prerogatives
- Safeguarding classified information and national security interests
- Preserving government resources, particularly where the government’s costs (including the opportunity costs of expending resources on other matters) are likely to exceed any expected gain
- Addressing egregious procedural errors that could frustrate the government's efforts to conduct a proper investigation
The above reflects only one change from the prior version. Previously, the Justice Manual provided that dismissal may be warranted where it would promote “[c]urbing meritless qui tams that facially lack merit (either because the relator’s legal theory is inherently defective, or the relator’s factual allegations are frivolous).” With this revision, the DOJ markedly broadens the first consideration.
In discussing the FCA’s important role as a powerful tool for combatting fraud, former Associate Deputy General Paul Perkins explained how the revisions to the Justice Manual seek to balance enforcement priorities with concerns about waste, stating: “These revisions will help ensure the Department uses its enforcement authority fairly and effectively—holding fraudsters accountable for violations of binding legal or contractual obligations while seeking dismissal of meritless qui tam actions that waste taxpayer resources and impose unjustified burdens on businesses.”
Implications for FCA Defendants
The revisions to the Justice Manual signal a more aggressive government posture toward dismissing qui tam actions that lack merit or do not advance the government’s interests. Defendants in declined qui tam cases should consider proactively engaging with the DOJ to present reasons why dismissal is warranted under the seven enumerated factors. The requirement for ongoing reassessment means that defendants can raise dismissal arguments even after the initial declination stage, including when new facts or developments support dismissal.
For More Information
If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact Eric A. Boden, Shipra K. Rege, any of the attorneys in our White-Collar Criminal Defense, Corporate Investigations and Regulatory Compliance Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.
Footnote
1 This shift has already become apparent in practice. As Senator Charles E. Grassley, Chairman for the Committee on the Judiciary, stated in his April 2, 2026, letter to Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Civil Division, FCA dismissals over the objection of relators were at a rate of six per year under the prior administration, but in 2025 alone, the DOJ exercised dismissal authority 25 times.
Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
