Health Selection Group, LLC (HSG) sued Novartis Pharmaceuticals as a qui tam relator under the Act, alleging that Novartis bilked Texas Medicaid out of hundreds of millions of dollars through fraudulent marketing schemes; the State declined to take over the action but asserted a continuing interest and opposed Novartis's motion to dismiss.¹

Novartis filed a plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss arguing that HSG lacked standing, and the trial court denied it. The Sixth Court of Appeals denied mandamus without analysis on March 1, 2024. The Court issued a stay on August 30, 2024, requested merits briefs from Novartis, HSG and the State, and on October 24, 2025 denied the petition and lifted the stay.

Original petition for writ of mandamus after the court of appeals denied relief; stay lifted and petition denied October 24, 2025 (Docket).

Whether HSG lacks standing because Novartis's alleged violations did not injure it, and whether the Act's qui tam provisions violate the separation of powers under Article II, § 1 of the Texas Constitution by letting a private litigant represent the State.¹

Novartis (Relator): the relator suffered no injury and the qui tam device unconstitutionally lets a private party represent the State in court.

HSG and the State (Real Parties in Interest): the qui tam relator may proceed in the name of the person and of the State, and the State asserted a continuing interest in the case.¹

Not applicable⁠—the petition was denied.

None noted

Reasoning

The statement said analysis of standing would begin with Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. Stevens, which turned on the government's injury in fact as assignor, but the Texas Act is a penalty scheme rather than a damages action, so the State may have only an injury in law; and that Justices in United States v. Polansky and Wisconsin Bell have doubted the constitutionality of qui tam actions, and the Texas Constitution assigns representation of the State to the attorney general and county and district attorneys. It observed that the Fifteenth Court held in Sanofi that a qui tam action is a matter brought by the State even when the State declines to intervene, suggesting Novartis could seek mandamus there, and expressed hope that court would issue a written opinion so that this Court can settle the constitutional questions in an appropriate case.¹

Disposition

Petition for writ of mandamus denied and stay order issued August 30, 2024 lifted (Docket).

Vote Breakdown

Justices Young and Sullivan issued a joint statement respecting the denial.²