Dominique L. Casimir Archives - Government Contracts Navigator

Where Grant Litigation Stands After the Supreme Court’s Jurisdictional Ruling in NIH

The Supreme Court issued a fractured, 4-1-4 ruling on its emergency docket in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, No. 25A103, 606 U.S. ____ (2025) (per curiam) (“NIH”) on August 21, 2025.

The Court’s ruling left behind a complex legal landscape, because four justices wrote that a district court has jurisdiction to hear both a challenge to agency guidance alleged to be arbitrary and capricious, and challenges to grant terminations based on that guidance. Four other justices wrote that the entire case (i.e., both the challenge to the agency guidance and the challenge to grant terminations based on that guidance) belongs in the Court of Federal Claims. In the end, the outcome was controlled by a single justice (Justice Barrett), who decided the jurisdictional issue in a manner inconsistent with the views of eight justices. In her controlling concurrence, Justice Barrett ruled that a district court has jurisdiction to hear a challenge to agency guidance, but lacks jurisdiction to hear challenges to grant terminations based on that guidance because grant termination challenges are subject to the Tucker Act and therefore belong in the Court of Federal Claims.

Two lower opinions handed down since NIH show lower courts falling in line with Justice Barrett’s ruling in NIH:

Supreme Court Weighs in for a Second Time on Jurisdiction over Grant Termination Cases

Dominique L. Casimir and Sara N. Gerber ●

The Supreme Court recently ruled for the second time that federal district courts likely lack jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to hear challenges to terminations of federal grants. The first such ruling came in April of this year, when the Court granted an emergency stay in California v. Department of Education. On August 21, 2025, the Supreme Court issued another emergency stay, in NIH v. American Public Health Association, reaffirming the view that challenges to grant terminations are, in substance, breach of contract actions for money damages that belong in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act.

Since California, several lower courts have nevertheless asserted jurisdiction over grantee lawsuits seeking reinstatement of terminated grants, often distinguishing California on procedural or factual grounds. We have previously written about some of those cases (including Massachusetts v. Kennedy, which was later consolidated with NIH). Although the Supreme Court’s decision in NIH is an interim order, the jurisdictional question may now be functionally settled, particularly given Justice Gorsuch’s admonishment to lower courts that even if they “sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions…they are never free to defy them. When this court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts.” Following NIH, we expect terminated grantees will largely be forced into the Court of Federal Claims, which generally does not have authority under the Tucker Act to grant the equitable relief—reinstatement of grants—that many of them are seeking.

Trump Administration Increases Oversight of Federal Grants

Dominique L. Casimir and Shane M. Hannon ●

President Trump issued an Executive Order (“EO”) on August 7 that overhauls the federal grantmaking process. Titled “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” the EO identifies deficiencies in the federal government’s current approach to issuing discretionary grants. The EO criticizes some existing federal grants as an “offensive waste of tax dollars” and promoting “anti-American ideologies,” and contends grants have been issued to “organizations that actively work against American interests abroad.” It also identifies defects in the grant approval process, noting that drafting grant applications is “notoriously complex” and therefore too costly for smaller institutions. The EO seeks to align federal grants with the Administration’s policy preferences and give the Administration greater control to select grant recipients. Here are the relevant highlights and takeaways:

The EO expands the federal government’s ability to terminate grants.

A core feature of the EO is requiring all discretionary grants, current and future, to include termination for convenience clauses. Discretionary grants are those where an agency exercises its own judgment to select both the funding amount and the grantee, such as by basing award on the merits of grant applications via a competitive process. Historically, discretionary grants have not included termination for convenience clauses. For example, the Uniform Guidance, 2 C.F.R. § 200, does not include a provision that permits the federal government to terminate a discretionary grant at its leisure. This is in contrast to typical federal contracts, which invariably include termination for convenience provisions, such as FAR 52.249-2.

DOJ Issues July 2025 Guidance on Unlawful Discrimination: Navigating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in a New Legal Landscape

Dominique L. Casimir, Brooke T. Iley, and Jennifer A. Short ●

From the outset of his current term in office, President Trump has made it a signature policy objective to target and dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) and so-called “gender ideology” in both the public and the private sectors. Blank Rome has covered these policy initiatives extensively, along with the various lawsuits challenging them. In the courts and elsewhere, the government has been questioned about what the phrase “illegal DEI” actually means.

Perhaps in response to those queries, on July 29, 2025, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a memorandum titled “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding.” The memo’s stated objective is to offer “non-binding suggestions to help entities comply with federal antidiscrimination laws and avoid legal pitfalls,” thereby aiming to “minimize the risk of violations.”

This memo provides the most comprehensive insight about DOJ’s perspective on DEI and gender ideology practices to date, and thus serves as a valuable resource for recipients of federal funding as they review their current policies. Private employers, too, may find the memo a useful framework to evaluate potential risks associated with DEI initiatives and to discern what actions the Administration considers to violate civil rights laws. That said, the DOJ memo does not address certain practical questions that entities will face in trying to adhere to its guidance. Below, we summarize the memo and provide our analysis of its most significant aspects for federally funded entities and companies.

Read the full client alert on our website.

This alert was published in The Government Contractor, Volume 67 Issue 30, on August 13, 2025.

Blank Rome Attorneys Appointed to American Bar Association’s Public Contract Law Section Leadership for the 2025–2026 Term

We are pleased to announce that a record nine attorneys from Blank Rome’s nationally recognized Government Contracts group have been appointed to leadership roles in the American Bar Association’s (“ABA”) Public Contract Law Section for the 2025–2026 term.

Visit our website to learn more about their roles and ABA’s Section of Public Contract Law.

Webinar: Impacts on Government Contractors: 180 Days of the Trump Administration—Quick Hits on Executive Orders, Actions, and Policies

Blank Rome-Hosted Live Webinar
July 29, 2025
12:00–1:00 p.m. EDT | 9:00–10:00 a.m. PDT

Please join Blank Rome Government Contracts attorneys Justin A. Chiarodo, Dominique L. Casimir, Robyn N. Burrows, and Sara N. Gerber for this timely webinar with key updates for government contractors navigating the first 180 days of the Trump Administration, and the days ahead.

Topics include:

Civil rights enforcement / diversity, equity, and inclusion
Federal Acquisition Regulation update
Contract and grant terminations

This session is part of Blank Rome’s summer live webinar series 180 Days of the Trump Administration—Quick Hits on Executive Orders, Actions, and Policies (ending on Wednesday, August, 13, 2025), where our interdisciplinary Trump Administration Resource Team is unpacking the most pressing legal, regulatory, and policy developments from the Trump administration’s first 180 days.

Click here to register for the July 29 government contractor session and for any future sessions: Summer 2025- Trump 180 Day Webinar Series | RSVP Blank.

You may also view any past sessions on demand here: On-Demand Webinar Series: 180 Days of the Trump Administration.

Blank Rome’s Government Contracts Practice and Attorneys Highly Ranked in Chambers USA 2025

Blank Rome’s Government Contracts practice was ranked in Band 2 in Government Contracts: The Elite, USA in the Chambers USA 2025 rankings, placing our team among the top 10 law firms in the nationwide rankings.

Chambers quoted a government contracts reference as saying that “The firm has specialized expertise as well as a broader perspective on the issues at play.”

Chambers USA included four of our attorneys in their 2025 Government Contracts rankings: Dominique L. Casimir, Justin A. Chiarodo, Elizabeth N. Jochum, and Luke W. Meier, with Elizabeth receiving an additional ranking for “Government Contracts: Bid Protests.”

To view all of Blank Rome’s Chambers USA 2025 rankings, please visit our website.

Department of Justice Announces New Initiative to Combat Civil Rights Fraud Using the False Claims Act

Dominique L. Casimir, Jennifer A. Short, and Brooke T. Iley ●

From time to time, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has established initiatives, task forces, or strike teams to advance its enforcement priorities. In recent years, DOJ has announced a Procurement Collusion Strike Force, a COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force, and a Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative, in each instance explicitly invoking a plan to use the False Claims Act (“FCA”) for civil enforcement.

DOJ announced the latest version of this enforcement approach on May 19, 2025, when Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum announcing a new Civil Rights Fraud Initiative (“the Initiative”), described as a coordinated and “vigorous” effort to leverage the specter of FCA liability against recipients of federal funding alleged to be violating civil rights laws. The types of alleged civil rights violations targeted by this Initiative relate to diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs, antisemitism, and transgender policy, all of which dovetail with a number of Executive Orders (“EOs”) expressing President Trump’s approach to these issues.

Relevant Executive Orders

Some of the EOs relevant to the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative include:

EO No. 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (January 20, 2025). This EO directs federal government agencies to end DEI and diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (“DEIA”) programs, to eliminate positions such as “Chief Diversity Officer,” and to terminate grants and contracts related to DEI and DEIA. It also orders a review of federal employment practices to ensure they focus on individual merit rather than DEI factors.

EO No. 14168: Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government (January 20, 2025). This EO declares, as United States’ policy, that there are two immutable sexes (male and female), based on biological reality. It requires changes to government-issued identification documents and prohibits federal funding for so-called “gender ideology.”

EO No. 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (January 21, 2025). This EO requires that all federal contracts and grants include a certification that recipients do not operate any DEI programs that violate applicable antidiscrimination laws and affirms that compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws is material to government payment decisions. Additionally, the EO directs DOJ to identify key sectors and entities for DEI-related enforcement, and to recommend strategies to end “illegal DEI discrimination” in the private sector.

EO No. 14188: Additional Measures To Combat Anti-Semitism (January 29, 2025). This EO reaffirms EO 13899 from December 11, 2019, which aimed to combat antisemitism, particularly in educational institutions. It directs various federal agencies to identify actions to curb antisemitism and recommends monitoring foreign students and staff for antisemitic actions.

EO No. 14201: Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports (February 5, 2025). This EO aims to exclude transgender individuals from competing in women’s sports. It directs the Secretary of Education to rescind funding from educational institutions that do not comply.

Read the full client alert on our website.

Disagreeing with the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit and Two District Courts Find APA Jurisdiction in Challenges to Federal Contract and Grant Terminations

Dominique L. Casimir and Sara N. Gerber ●

One of the immediate priorities of the second Trump administration has been the termination of a slew of federal contracts and grants. This, predictably, has led to litigation, mostly filed in the U.S. District Courts, which as we have previously written, have authority to grant equitable relief. The government has been arguing that these cases belong in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, where only monetary damages are available (and only upon meeting the high burden of establishing that the government acted in bad faith). On April 4, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an emergency stay of a District Court’s preliminary injunction in a case challenging grant terminations, with the five-justice majority suggesting that the termination case belonged in the Court of Federal Claims. But since then, two U.S. District Courts and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled—contrary to the Supreme Court’s emergency stay order—that there is indeed district court jurisdiction in cases challenging contract and grant terminations. As Judge Young of the District Court of Massachusetts stated, “…this Court, after careful reflection, finds itself in the somewhat awkward position of agreeing with the Supreme Court dissenters and considering itself bound by the still authoritative decision of the Court of Appeals of the First Circuit…” which ruled that the Tucker Act did not apply, and that the government’s actions were reviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”).

An Update on the DEI Certification Provision of Executive Order 14173

Dominique L. Casimir ●

On May 2, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in National Urban League et al. v. Trump, et al., 25-471, a case that seeks to halt enforcement of President Trump’s executive orders (“EOs”) related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), EO 14151 and EO 14173, as well as EO 14168, regarding so-called “Gender Ideology.” At this point two tribunals have ruled that the DEI-related EOs should not be enjoined pending legal challenges. (The other tribunal to take this position is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which stayed a nationwide preliminary injunction of the DEI-related EOs issued by the District Court of Maryland.)

Government contractors are particularly interested in the DEI Certification provision in Section 3(b)(iv)(A) and (B) of EO 14173, which requires each agency of the government to include two terms in every contract or grant award: one requiring the counterparty “to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal antidiscrimination laws,” and another requiring it to agree that compliance with those laws “is material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of” the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(4). (We have previously done a deep dive on FCA liability premised on DEI programs.)

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: