DOJ Launches Civil Rights Fraud Initiative Targeting Compliance Misrepresentations
On May 19, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced the launch of its Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, a new enforcement effort focused on identifying and addressing false certifications of compliance with civil rights laws by recipients of federal funds.[1] The initiative, announced in a memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, leverages the False Claims Act (“FCA”) to investigate instances in which entities may have knowingly misrepresented their adherence to federal civil rights requirements when applying for or receiving government contracts or grants.
Statutory Basis and the Role of the FCA
The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733) imposes liability on any person who:
- Knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval to the federal government, or
- Knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.
Expanded Use of the False Claims Act
Traditionally applied to cases of financial fraud involving federal funds, the FCA allows the government—or whistleblowers acting on its behalf—to pursue civil penalties and treble damages for submitting knowingly false claims. Under this initiative, the DOJ is extending its interpretation of the FCA to include representations related to compliance with key civil rights statutes, including:
- Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (prohibiting discrimination in federally funded programs),
- Title VII (prohibiting employment discrimination),
- Title IX (addressing sex discrimination in education),
- Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (non-discrimination in health programs), and
- Executive Order 11246 (equal employment opportunity in federal contracting).
While civil rights enforcement has traditionally been handled by agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”), or the Department of Education, the DOJ’s new approach leveraging application of the FCA may introduce additional legal exposure for organizations certifying compliance in these areas.
Qui Tam Risk and Political Litigation
The FCA allows private whistleblowers (relators) to file suits on the government’s behalf. Under this initiative, DOJ has explicitly invited such suits related to civil rights noncompliance.
The Blanche Memo notes:
The False Claims Act is … implicated whenever federal-funding recipients or contractors certify compliance with civil rights laws while knowingly engaging in racist preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities, including through diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that assign benefits or burdens on race, ethnicity, or national origin.[2]
The Blanche Memo suggests that organizations could face liability under the FCA if they knowingly certify compliance with civil rights laws while failing to uphold related requirements. This may include areas such as equal opportunity policies, workplace accommodations, and institutional practices relating to race, gender identity, or religion.[3]
This opens the door to more litigation over diversity and inclusion policies. For contractors, this creates significant uncertainty and may deter innovation in workforce inclusion or accommodations.
While the DOJ’s announcement did not single out specific programs, the types of issues referenced include policies related to gender identity inclusion, diversity and equity efforts, and religious accommodations. The breadth of the initiative may prompt organizations to reevaluate how civil rights compliance is assessed and documented.
Considerations for Government Contractors
Entities that receive federal funding—especially medium to large government contractors—may wish to take proactive measures to mitigate legal and compliance risks:
- Review Civil Rights Certifications: Ensure that all representations of compliance with civil rights obligations are accurate and well-documented.
- Assess Internal Policies: Conduct risk-based reviews of employment, training, and inclusion programs to confirm alignment with current legal standards.
- Strengthen Compliance Oversight: Equip compliance and legal teams to handle evolving guidance and whistleblower concerns effectively.
- Prepare for Potential Litigation: Develop a strategy to respond to civil enforcement actions or whistleblower claims under the FCA.
Conclusion
The Civil Rights Fraud Initiative reflects an evolving DOJ enforcement strategy that incorporates civil rights compliance into broader fraud prevention efforts. While its long-term impact remains to be seen, the initiative highlights the importance of accurate certifications and sound internal compliance frameworks for all recipients of federal funding.
Organizations are encouraged to stay informed, document their compliance efforts carefully, and consult legal counsel when reviewing civil rights obligations under federal law or faced with DOJ or other federal regulatory investigations into this or any other issue.
About the Authors
Adriaen M. Morse is a former SEC enforcement attorney who also served as chief litigation counsel for a publicly traded government contractor. Lionel André is a former federal prosecutor and Deputy Chief of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section. Together, they help lead SECIL Law’s enforcement and civil litigation practice, with a focus on regulatory risk, government investigations, and strategic compliance.
By Adriaen Morse and Lionel André, Partners, SECIL Law PLLC | Washington, D.C. Adriaen and Lionel can be reached at amorse@secillaw.com and landre@secillaw.com respectively.
[1] Todd Blanche, Memorandum, Civil Rights Fraud Initiative (May 19, 2025) (“Blanche Memo”), https://www.justice.gov/dag/media/1400826/dl?inline=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery.
[2] Id. at 1.
[3] It is important to note that the DOJ’s interpretation of discriminatory actions seems more influenced by the prevailing political climate than by the consistent standards set by established case law. For example, the Blanche Memo states: “[A] university that accepts federal funds could violate the False Claims Act when it encourages antisemitism, refuses to protect Jewish students, allows men to intrude into women’s bathrooms, or requires women to compete against men in athletic competitions. Colleges and universities cannot accept federal funds while discriminating against their students.” Id. at 2. It will be interesting to see what cases the DOJ pursues and whether these theories eventually enjoy judicial endorsement.
