Compliance Stuff

DOJ’s Civil Division recently issued a memorandum prioritizing the expedited review of whistleblower-initiated False Claims Act (“FCA”) complaints targeting alleged fraud in state-administered programs receiving federal funding. This reform is designed to expedite FCA “meritorious qui tam cases, maximize finite enforcement resources, and focus on dismantling sophisticated fraud schemes that exploit taxpayer-funded programs,” including housing, food, medical care, and cash assistance.  The new policy signals materially shorter response timelines, increased likelihood of parallel civil and criminal scrutiny, and heightened enforcement risks. Background and Policy Context President Trump’s Executive Order , Establishing the Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, directed DOJ to promote meritorious qui tams and ensure their prompt review. The policy also aligns with DOJ’s broader efforts to enhance enforcement efficiency, including the launch of the National Fraud Enforcement Division (see ...

The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) legal landscape continues to shift and present new risks as DEI continues to be a focus for the federal government and ideologically aligned state Attorneys General. Most recently, late-March 2026 produced three fast-moving developments that signal continued—and in some areas intensified—scrutiny of DEI-adjacent initiatives for employers, federal contractors, and higher education institutions.  Specifically, the White House issued a new executive order aimed at federal contracts, the Department of Justice is now investigating the admissions practices of several medical schools, the Florida Attorney General has taken aim at a long-standing DEI-related rule used by the National Football League, and the EEOC is warning employers to that DEI policies may create race and sex-based discrimination in employment. Employers and other entities should be aware that these actions make clear that there is sustained interest in targeting DEI practices. ...

On April 30, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced two significant developments that materially expand the federal government’s fraud enforcement footprint and reshape the landscape for potential targets and whistleblowers.  First, DOJ’s newly created National Fraud Enforcement Division (the “NFED”) (see our alert   here )  launched  the West Coast Health Care Fraud Strike Force (the “Strike Force”), a multi-district initiative covering Arizona, Nevada, and the Northern District of California.    Second, DOJ’s Civil Division  announced  the Fraud Oversight through Careful Use of Statistics (“FOCUS”)  initiative , which formalizes DOJ’s engagement with data miners filing qui tam complaints under the False Claims Act (“FCA”).    These actions signal an aggressive, data-driven, and resource-intensive approach to combating fraud against federal programs that entities and individuals should be prepared to navigate. NFED:...

Government contractors are familiar with the “government contractor defense” that can limit liability for work performed under a federal contract. The defense is often discussed through two classic Supreme Court cases: (1)  Yearsley , sometimes described as “derivative sovereign immunity,” and (2)  Boyle , which recognized federal preemption of certain state-law tort claims. While powerful, neither is a blank check. The Supreme Court has now clarified how these doctrines apply, while signaling a narrower focus in general. Merely having a federal contract, even in a combat zone, may not be enough to shield you from liability. Clear contractual instruction and compliance with those instructions will be critical to contractors going forward. The case is  Hencely v. Fluor Corp. , decided April 22, 2026. Let’s get into it. A grisly case. By the time a case hits the Supreme Court, it has concentrated down to one or a few very high-level legal issues. Yet, the facts matter, and ...

The Supreme Court has recently addressed, and will soon further clarify, the scope of liability facing government contractors.  In  The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal , the Court issued a unanimous decision limiting interlocutory appeals of the  Yearsley  defense. At the same time, contractors await the Court’s ruling in  Hencely v. Fluor Corp ., which will address whether federal law preempts state tort claims against contractors operating in a military context. Together, these cases shape contractors’ litigation risk, strategy, and exposure. Yearsley  Defense Not Immediately Appealable As discussed previously,  GEO Group  involved detainees who alleged that GEO’s work policies violated federal and state law. GEO argued that it was not liable under  Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co . because ICE authorized and directed the challenged conduct. The district court rejected that defense, and the Tenth Circuit held that the ruling was not immed...

The Department of War’s (“DoW”) dispute with Anthropic continues to evolve. Should you, as a government contractor, change your relationships with Anthropic or its products as a result?  To recap the story: Two weeks ago, DoW designated Anthropic, a major provider of AI tools, including the only AI tool cleared for classified systems, as a supply chain risk following a breakdown in negotiations over contractual use restrictions on Anthropic’s Claude model. This marked the first time a U.S.-based company has ever been designated a supply chain risk. A few days prior, DoW considered using the Defense Production Act to ensure preferred access and potentially compel changes to Anthropic’s products. After the designation, the President instructed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic technology, and DoW statements implied contractors should not engage commercially with Anthropic . Multiple  legal  commentators  questioned whether the Department’s actions exce...

As we have  written previously , contractors must act fast to file a bid protest if they lose a contract award for improper reasons . But what should a contractor do when it wins the award and another competitor files a bid protest? It should immediately intervene in the protest to defend its award. What is Intervention in a Bid Protest and Why Should the Awardee Intervene? When a protest is filed at the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) or the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), the contract awardee can intervene and become a party to that protest to help the Government defend the contract award. Instead of just relying on the Government to raise all the relevant arguments, the awardee can itself raise arguments on its own behalf that support and supplement the Government’s arguments. Every contract awardee should intervene to protect its award. Primary reasons for intervention. Several important reasons exist for the contract awardee to intervene in a protest, including the ...