Faster-Tracking FCA Cases: DOJ Announces Accelerated Review Procedures for Benefits Fraud Cases

On May 27, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate issued a memorandum announcing procedures by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to “Accelerat[e] Review and Enhanc[e] Enforcement in Benefits Fraud Matters” (the Memorandum). The Memorandum comes on the heels of other recent initiatives and announcements — including the March 16, 2026 Executive Order on “Establishing the Task Force to Eliminate Fraud,” the April 7, 2026 establishment of the “National Fraud Enforcement Division” (NFED), and the “FOCUS” initiative announcement a few weeks ago focusing on data-mining relators — all signaling renewed DOJ focus on FCA enforcement and, in particular, pushing forward relator-filed qui tam actions.

The Memorandum provides guidance to DOJ attorneys regarding review and investigation of qui tam matters focused on “benefits fraud” — i.e., “fraud on federally-funded benefits programs administered by states.”

What Are the Features of This Accelerated Review Process?

Accelerated Timeline for Investigations and Intervention Decisions

The FCA provides for an investigative period of 60 days upon filing of a qui tam action, during which the complaint remains under seal. But, in practice, that statutory deadline often gets extended by court order, sometimes for years, as investigations typically take more than just two months. The Memorandum directs DOJ attorneys to prioritize and, to the maximum extent practicable, complete their initial review of filed benefits fraud cases within the FCA’s statutory 60-day seal period — and no later than 120 days. To expedite investigations, DOJ attorneys are directed to:

• Develop investigative plans, issue Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) and subpoenas promptly, tailor requests to target key issues, press to ensure timely compliance with concrete deadlines (seeking court intervention as needed), and conduct early witness interviews and depositions in lieu of document collection, where appropriate; and
• Leverage assistance from relator’s counsel and consider intervention even before a detailed assessment of damages, which the Memorandum says can be refined during discovery, post-intervention.

At the conclusion of that review, DOJ should either: (1) permit the relator to proceed with the litigation; (2) determine that further government investigation is warranted; or (3) seek dismissal under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) where the complaint lacks sufficient specificity or is otherwise legally deficient. Requests to extend the investigative period beyond 120 days require approval from senior DOJ officials.

The Memorandum notes that this approach will increase the number of relator-litigated matters and allow the government to concentrate on dismantling and holding accountable those responsible for perpetrating more complex, sophisticated, and harmful fraudulent schemes. The Memorandum also notes that DOJ will “leverage a whole-of-government approach” to make sure those new benefits fraud matters are evaluated and accelerated properly, including cross-referral to and sharing with the Criminal Division, the NFED, and other affected agencies.

Relator-Led Litigation

The Memorandum also addresses circumstances in which DOJ will determine that relators should promptly proceed with the litigation absent government intervention (with the government retaining the ability to later intervene). DOJ attorneys should assess whether the allegations are supported by available data analytics, agency information, or the relator’s own knowledge and whether the allegations would actually constitute an FCA violation if true. DOJ attorneys should also assess the complexity and novelty of the alleged scheme (presumably, more novel or complex matters would be government-led, rather than related-led), the estimated damages (presumably, lower estimated figures would be more appropriate for relator-led cases), and the presence of aggravating circumstances such as beneficiary harm, ongoing misuse of federal funds, or concealment and deceit.

AAG Shumate emphasizes that relators and their counsel should be prepared to assume responsibility for litigating these matters, including ensuring that complaints include sufficient detail to satisfy applicable pleading requirements (e.g., FRCP 9(b)), and minimize burdens on the government.

Looking Forward: Key Takeaways and Potential Changes to Expect

• For entities participating in or connected to federally funded benefits programs administered by states (e.g., Medicaid), the Memorandum telegraphs, albeit indirectly, the importance of maintaining an effective compliance program, including appropriate documentation. The accelerated investigative timelines may require companies to respond more quickly to government inquiries and requests for information — and good document organization and hygiene will be helpful.
• Once a CID or subpoena is received, expect that government attorneys may ask for witness interviews and/or depositions earlier on, even before substantial document production is complete. While, overall, this will likely increase pressure on responding entities, the tighter timelines and focus on acceleration could also present opportunities for defense counsel to seek, and potentially receive, feedback from government attorneys on what, in particular, is being investigated and what would be most helpful to prioritize in production. Likewise, expedited timelines may present an opportunity for defense counsel to request an early meeting with and presentation to government attorneys on the merits of the case.
• Finally, although even 120 days is an ambitious completion date for investigations of allegations of complex fraud, we may see swifter intervention/declination decisions, with fewer seal extension requests. As a practical matter, investigations take time, and it remains to be seen to what extent the Memorandum will result in a noticeable shift in the swiftness of intervention decisions. It will also be interesting to see whether DOJ will increasingly exercise its authority under Section (c)(2)(A) of the FCA to seek dismissal of qui tams over a relator’s objections rather than simply decline and allow the relator to proceed to litigation. More likely, swifter decision making will result in more relator-led qui tam suits, albeit with the caveat that the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions of the FCA remains in dispute.

We will continue to monitor developments in FCA enforcement and DOJ’s implementation of these procedures. For questions regarding the Memorandum or its implications, please contact the authors or any member of Arnold & Porter’s False Claims Act Investigations & Defense practice group.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.