DOJ Revises Justice Manual to Reshape False Claims Act Enforcement
On Friday, September 18, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced changes to the Justice Manual to clarify certain standards the DOJ must meet when pursuing False Claims Act (FCA) cases. The DOJ’s stated intent in implementing these revisions is to ensure that its enforcement authority is used “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.”
The DOJ made two revisions to the Justice Manual, analyzed in more detail below. One emphasizes the limited relevance of sub-regulatory guidance documents by agencies, while the other encourages DOJ attorneys to exercise discretion to dismiss meritless qui tam actions that do not advance government interests. Given DOJ’s recent increase in FCA enforcement, these revisions will impact how DOJ approaches FCA cases and give companies more grounds to challenge FCA claims.
Informal Agency Guidance
To ensure that agency guidance documents are not given the same weight as regulations, DOJ’s revisions in Section 1-19.000 have reinstated and built upon the DOJ’s 2017 policy regarding sub-regulatory guidance. The Justice Manual now expressly prohibits “guidance documents that purport to create rights or obligations binding on persons or entities outside the Executive Branch (including state, local, and tribal governments).” Further, DOJ components are prohibited from issuing guidance documents that create binding standards for the DOJ to assess when determining compliance with existing statutory or regulatory requirements.
The revised Justice Manual does not allow civil or criminal enforcement actions based on noncompliance with guidance documents alone; however, DOJ is permitted to continue to utilize agency guidance documents for interpretive and other purposes, such as to where knowledge of the guidance helps establish the requisite mens rea for a false claim, clarifies technical or scientific processes that are generally accepted in a particular field, or provides relevant legal or factual context in briefs or other filings, among others.
Dismissing Qui Tam Actions
Section 4-4.111 now outlines factors relevant to exercising DOJ’s authority to dismiss qui tam actions (rather than merely declining to intervene in them). DOJ attorneys are instructed to consider exercising dismissal authority when they decline to intervene, and, when not seeking dismissal, to revisit that decision if appropriate later in the litigation.
Section 4-4.111 outlines seven factors that DOJ attorneys should evaluate when determining whether to seek 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; and
- Addressing egregious procedural errors that could frustrate the government’s efforts to conduct a proper investigation.
These factors are not exhaustive, and if the DOJ finds one or more of these factors are applicable, then a motion to dismiss the action may be warranted. Attorneys seeking a dismissal of a qui tam action should identify applicable reasons supporting dismissal of the action, including under the first-to-file bar, the public-disclosure bar, the tax bar, or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Any monitored or jointly handled cases must obtain approval of the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division before submitting a motion to dismiss a qui tam action, including under § 3730(c)(2)(A). US Attorneys will have the authority to dismiss a delegated qui tam action unless the dismissal presents a novel issue of law or policy, or if it raises any issues that need the Assistant Attorney General’s attention. If a US Attorney determines that dismissal may be warranted, the Justice Manual instructs that they should closely consult with the affected agency, and the agency’s recommendation should be acquired before filing the request to dismiss. To alleviate the need for a filing by the DOJ, US Attorneys should consider advising relators of deficiencies in their cases so that the relators may consider dismissing their action, thus further preserving governmental resources. In the event of an ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding relating to the underlying conduct, DOJ attorneys are instructed to consult the lead attorney for that matter prior to filing a motion to dismiss the qui tam action.
Finally, revised Section 4-4.111 makes clear that dismissal will not always be warranted in a declined case, as the interest in preserving governmental resources dictates that the government only investigate a qui tam action to the extent necessary to decide whether to intervene or decline. Declination does not necessarily mean the qui tam action is meritless. But even where DOJ concludes that a dismissal is not warranted at that time, it is encouraged to revisit that decision as the litigation progresses and possibly issue a dismissal if necessary. The revised Justice Manual provision recognizes that dismissals under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) are an important tool in advancing the government’s interests, preserving limited resources, and avoiding adverse precedent, while cautioning that its use must be “judicious.”
Conclusion
These revisions to the Justice Manual further illustrate the Trump Administration’s continued emphasis on re-shaping FCA enforcement. In addition to these two revisions, the Trump Administration has overseen a notable evolution in FCA enforcement, with a particular focus on healthcare, trade, and civil rights, and record-breaking settlements and numbers of qui tam lawsuits filed. For more information on the DOJ’s FCA enforcement evolution, please see our Legal Updates, A False Claims Act FY 2025 Year in Review and Deputy AG Blanche Establishes DOJ Civil Rights Fraud Initiative to Target DEI and DEIA Using the False Claims Act.
In light of these revisions to the Justice Manual, any company facing an FCA claim should evaluate the strength of its arguments for DOJ to exercise its dismissal authority, including whether the claims are based upon lack of compliance with informal agency guidance.
