Across the healthcare industry, providers are increasingly relying on AI-assisted billing tools to automate medical coding, prior authorization workflows, and the submission of claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal payors. Some vendors advertise “clean” claim rates exceeding 98%, meaning payors almost always accept submitted claims without further intervention or correction. But a high clean-claim rate is an operational metric, not a compliance safe harbor. It does not establish that the claim was properly coded, medically necessary, supported by documentation, or free from overpayment risk. The efficiency gains can be substantial, as can the heightened False Claims Act (“FCA”) exposure these systems can create. At the same time, many of these tools may improve consistency and reduce certain forms of human error when implemented and monitored appropriately. As AI continues to develop and becomes more widely integrated into healthcare billing, relators and prosecutors are likely to explore new avenues for evaluating, and litigating, how these tools are deployed, monitored, and overseen.

On June 11, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the federal government’s motions for a stay pending appeal in State of Oregon v. Trump (Nos. 2026-1804, 2026-1805), consolidated appeals from two decisions of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) that had enjoined enforcement of tariffs imposed under Proclamation No. 11012 and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. While the appeal proceeds on the merits, the government may continue to collect the Section 122 “balance-of-payments” tariffs as to the parties covered by the underlying injunctions, including the State of Washington, Burlap and Barrel, Inc., and Basic Fun, Inc., pending further order of the Federal Circuit.