1. Whether the False Claims Act's qui tam provisions are unconstitutional.

2. Whether a legal interpretation can be deemed so "objectively unreasonable" as to constitute "highly probative" evidence of scienter under the False Claims Act when it was widely held throughout the industry, no government actor rejected it, and four federal judges expressly found it reasonable.

Whether the False Claims Act's qui tam provisions violate the separation of powers doctrine, and whether a legal interpretation can constitute evidence of scienter when it was widely held throughout the industry and found reasonable by multiple federal judges