Rising Importance Of Sub-Regulatory Guidance In False Claims Act Cases

Published date27 August 2021
Subject MatterLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution
Law FirmFoley & Lardner
AuthorMs Pamela Johnston, Lori Rubin, Matthew D. Krueger and Lisa M. Noller

On July 1, 2021, United States Attorney General Merrick Garland rescinded the Brand Memorandum and the Sessions Memorandum, which directed Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys to refrain from using agency guidance to bring enforcement cases such as False Claims Act cases (Garland Memorandum). These prior memoranda, their accompanying regulations, and the relevant Justice Manual provisions narrowed the utility for DOJ attorneys of agency manuals, memoranda, and other forms of agency sub-regulatory guidance. The Biden administration has rolled back earlier directives from the prior administration as 'overly restrictive.' Accordingly, various prior protections found in former DOJ memoranda and DOJ regulations have been revoked. Interestingly, these actions by the Attorney General were not posted on the Attorney's General press release page and have yet to receive much attention by the defense bar. Regardless, they merit a close review by companies and their counsel to see how they may impact pending False Claims Act investigations and cases.

In the Garland Memorandum, Attorney General Garland acknowledged that under current law, DOJ cannot seek to enforce violations of non-promulgated agency guidance. In the Garland Memorandum, he recited that in the enforcement context, 'an agency guidance document by itself 'never forms 'the basis for an enforcement action'' because such documents cannot 'impose any 'legal binding requirements' on private parties,'' quoting Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S.Ct. 2400, 2420 (2019). The new Garland Memorandum recognizes that by 'definition, guidance documents 'do not have the force and effect of law,'' quoting Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 97 (2015) (quoting Shalala v. Guernsey Mem'l Hosp., 514 U.S. 87, 99 (1995)).

Despite this acknowledgement of Supreme Court precedent, Attorney General Garland signaled the future of this change of direction and indicated that DOJ attorneys 'are free to cite or rely' on guidance documents '[t]o the extent guidance documents are relevant to claims or defenses in litigation' (Garland Memorandum, p. 3). The Garland Memorandum articulates few limits on the use of guidance documents, providing that DOJ attorneys 'may rely on relevant guidance documents in any appropriate and lawful circumstances,' including to request a court's deference to the guidance document's interpretation of legal requirements. Id. This Garland Memorandum does not alter DOJ's longstanding practice of using prior...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT