Saying What They Mean: The False Claims Act Amendments in the Wake of Allison Engine

Saying What They Mean: The False Claims Act Amendments in the Wake of Allison Engine i. introductionThe power of the False Claims Act ("FCA") has ebbed and flowed throughout the Act's history. 1 What initially began as a robust law against fraud found itself weakened during World War II due to concerns about redundant litigation, 2 resulting in the law being all but forgotten.3 Concerned with the loss of this anti-fraud tool, Congress amended the Act in 1986 with much success.4 However, the courts began to chip away at the Act's foundation as they interpreted the Act's language, culminating with the Supreme Court's decision in Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel.Sanders. 5 In response to the Court's attacks on the FCA, Congress again amended the Act in the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 ("FERA").6 Through FERA, the tide has again turned the FCA into a powerful weapon against those who wish to defraud the federal government ("Government").7 This comment first discusses the history and language of the FCA through its various incarnations.8 Next, the comment traces the court's statutory interpretation of the FCA, 9 focusing on the Supreme Court's decision in Allison Engine.10 Then, the comment examines Congress's response to Allison Engine through the FERA amendments.11 Finally, the comment compares the new statutory language to the