In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the dismissal of a whistleblower case filed by Elizabeth Jacobson against the United States. The court's decision, made on June 18, 2026, affects individuals who file whistleblower claims under the Financial Institutions Anti-Fraud Enforcement Act (FIAFEA), particularly those alleging fraud against financial institutions like Wells Fargo.
The case stems from Jacobson's allegations that Wells Fargo Bank engaged in fraudulent practices related to mortgage loans. The court's ruling clarifies the limitations of judicial review regarding whistleblower claims under FIAFEA, emphasizing the Attorney General's authority in such matters.
Background
Elizabeth Jacobson worked as a mortgage loan officer at Wells Fargo from 1998 to 2007. In March 2012, she filed a declaration with the U.S. Attorney General, alleging that Wells Fargo had fraudulently originated thousands of “stated income” loans between 2005 and 2007. The U.S. Department of Justice later informed Jacobson that her declaration was deficient and invalid, citing several reasons.
In January 2018, the Department of Justice rejected her claim, stating that it did not contain new factual elements necessary to establish a prima facie case. Additionally, Jacobson had admitted to participating in the alleged fraudulent conduct, and her claims had been disclosed in prior civil litigation and media reports. Following her rejection, the government reached a $2 billion settlement with Wells Fargo related to the same allegations.
Jacobson filed a complaint in April 2022 with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, challenging the Attorney General's determination. She argued that the court should review whether FIAFEA is a money-mandating statute before dismissing her complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed her case, leading to her appeal to the Federal Circuit.
The Ruling
The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Jacobson's complaint, stating that the Court of Federal Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review the Attorney General's actions under FIAFEA. The court emphasized that FIAFEA includes a non-reviewability provision, which clearly bars judicial review of the Attorney General's decisions regarding whistleblower claims.
The court ruled, "Congress provided a clear and convincing indication of intent to bar judicial review of the Attorney General’s determinations concerning a whistleblowing declarant’s entitlement to share in any recovery."
The ruling clarified that the Court of Federal Claims was not required to determine whether FIAFEA is a money-mandating statute before dismissing Jacobson's claim. The judges on the panel included Circuit Judges Reyna, Wallach, and Hughes.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for whistleblowers who seek to file claims under FIAFEA. It reinforces the notion that the Attorney General's decisions in these matters are largely insulated from judicial review. Individuals considering whistleblower claims may find it challenging to contest rejections based on the Attorney General's determinations.
Furthermore, the court's decision may deter potential whistleblowers from coming forward, knowing that their claims may not receive judicial scrutiny. The ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving FIAFEA, affirming the limitations on judicial review and the authority of the Attorney General.
What's Next
Jacobson's case is unlikely to be appealed further, as the Federal Circuit's decision is final. There are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling directly, but the implications of this decision may influence future whistleblower claims under FIAFEA.