Sara N. Gerber Archives - Government Contracts Navigator

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.

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.

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”).

Supreme Court Lifts Restraining Order on Grant Terminations

Dominique L. Casimir and Sara N. Gerber ●

The Supreme Court recently issued a ruling with significant impacts for federal contractors and grantees looking to challenge terminations of their contracts and grants in U.S. district courts. Terminated contractors and grantees may strongly prefer to challenge terminations in the district courts rather than in the Court of Federal Claims, because the Court of Federal Claims does not have authority to grant equitable relief to do things like restore funding or enjoin terminations, and the available grounds for challenging contract and grant terminations in the Court of Federal Claims are significantly limited.

In February 2025, the Department of Education (“DOE”) terminated $600 million in grants for teacher training on the grounds that the training included diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) concepts and thus no longer effectuated DOE priorities. The grantees challenged these terminations in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The District Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) directing DOE to restore the terminated grant funding. DOE asked the First Circuit to stay the TRO pending appeal, which the First Circuit denied. DOE then filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a majority of the justices sided with DOE.

A Roadmap for Terminations for Convenience in the DOGE-Era

Elizabeth N. Jochum, Robyn N. Burrows, and Sara N. Gerber ●

The Department of Government Efficiency’s (“DOGE”) scrutiny of federal contracts has resulted in a spike in notices of termination for convenience. Given DOGE’s broad mandate to reduce federal spending, we expect a sustained increase in the use of terminations for convenience to end contracts the administration considers “wasteful” or not aligned with its priorities.

But while termination notices make one thing clear—the contract is over—it can leave contractors with questions about their rights and obligations.

What Is a Termination for Convenience and Can I Challenge It?

The right to terminate for convenience is included expressly in almost all government contracts—and is generally considered to be a government right even when not expressly included.[1] Terminations for convenience allow the federal government to unilaterally end a contract (or a portion of a contract) immediately and without alleging contractor fault. The government typically invokes a termination for convenience after determining the contract is no longer in its best interests, and this can occur for a wide variety of reasons, such as budget cuts, or changes in government priorities or project requirements. Typically, the government does not explain why it is terminating a contract for convenience.

FAR Council Issues Final Rule on Sustainable Products & Services

Sara N. Gerber ●

As part of the Biden administration’s effort to use federal purchasing power to tackle climate change, the FAR Council issued a final rule, effective May 22, 2024, requiring agencies to procure “sustainable products and services,” to the “maximum extent practicable.” The “sustainable products and services” rule is just one of several proposed rules and directives intended to compel the government and government contractors to do business in a more environmentally sustainable way.

Under the final rule, the procurement of sustainable products and services is considered “practicable” if the products or services meet “reasonable performance requirements” and can be acquired “competitively within a reasonable performance schedule” and at “a reasonable price.” Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 23.103(a)(1). To determine whether the price is reasonable, the regulation directs agencies to “consider whether the product is cost-effective over the life of the product.” FAR 23.103(a)(2). If an agency determines that it is not practicable to procure sustainable products or services, the contracting officer must document the reason in writing in the contract file. FAR 23.103(a)(2).

OMB Embraces Government Use of Artificial Intelligence

Robyn N. Burrows and Sara N. Gerber ●

Last month, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to adopt artificial intelligence (“AI”) and advance its use to inform and carry out agency actions. OMB’s new policy addresses three main areas it views as necessary for responsibly deploying AI in agency decision-making: (1) strengthening AI governance; (2) advancing AI innovation; and (3) managing risks from the use of AI. With OMB encouraging the use of AI to streamline agency actions wherever possible, government contractors can also expect to see AI increasingly used in the procurement process.

AI Governance

OMB directed agencies to designate a Chief AI Officer whose responsibilities will include coordinating agency use of AI, developing a workforce with the skillsets necessary for implementing AI, and “identifying and prioritizing appropriate uses of AI that will advance both their agency’s mission and equitable outcomes.”

The Chief AI Officer is also tasked with ensuring that AI code and the data used to develop and test AI are inventoried and shared in data repositories. That individual must also prepare and submit annually to OMB an “AI use case inventory” documenting instances in which AI is used to address a particular need. For example, the Department of State’s (“DOS”) AI Inventory includes a bot that it developed “to automate the data entry in the Federal Procurement Data System” which the State Department reports has reduced the burden on the agency’s procurement staff and improved compliance on DATA Act reporting.

GSA Relaxes Price Increase Limitations for FSS Contractors

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. and Sara N. Gerber

The General Services Administration (“GSA”) Office of Governmentwide Policy recently authorized contracting officers to provide relief to GSA contractors experiencing cost increases due to surging inflation. See Acquisition Letter. To assist struggling contractors, GSA issued a temporary moratorium on the enforcement of certain limitations contained in GSA economic price adjustment (“EPA”) clauses.

GSA issued the moratorium in response to an uptick in contractors’ requests for price increases and removal of items from their Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) contracts to avoid selling at a loss. In issuing the moratorium, GSA recognized that inflationary pressures and price volatility, caused by supply chain disruptions, strong demand, and labor shortages, are ongoing concerns unlikely to abate in the near term. GSA acknowledged that it must help contractors weather this “unusual time”—especially small businesses and new market entrants—to ensure a resilient and diverse federal industrial base and the government’s continued access to critical “products, services, and solutions.”

Report on the State of Competition within the Defense Industrial Base

Brian S. Gocial, Sara N. Gerber, and Tjasse L. Fritz

As the federal government prepares to roll out infrastructure grants and contracts in amounts not seen since the New Deal and the defense industrial base (“DIB”) gears up to support billions in new spending to support Ukraine, a new Department of Defense (“DoD”) report raises serious concerns about the state of competition within the DIB. The report recently released by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment analyzes the state of competition within the DIB and concluded that it can be summarized in one word: poor. The report discusses the causes for the lack of competition and makes recommendations for improving the solicitation process to increase competition, inspire innovation, reduce prices, and improve quality.

Consolidation

Foremost among the causes for the lack of competition identified by the report is consolidation of the DIB. Of 51 aerospace and defense prime contractors in the 1990s only five exist today. Although the report failed to find significant correlation between this consolidation and increased pricing, the consolidation raises additional concerns for DoD, such as national security, mission risk, and strategic technology innovation. The report notes that “having only a single source or a small number of sources for a defense need can pose mission risk and, particularly in cases where the existing dominant supplier or suppliers are influenced by an adversary nation, pose significant national security risks.” The report recommends that when a merger is likely to harm one of these interests, DoD work closely with the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice to take structural or behavioral measures deemed necessary, up to and including blocking the merger.

Seventh Circuit Weighs in on Government Dismissal Authority under the FCA

Sara N. Gerber

The Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in U.S. ex rel. CIMZNHCA, LLC v. UCB, Inc. widens the Circuit split on the standard of review applicable when the government seeks to dismiss a qui tam case under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). The FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A), provides that the government may dismiss a qui tam case without the relator’s consent if the relator is given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Although the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has increasingly exercised its dismissal authority since issuance of the “Granston Memo” in January 2018—which encouraged DOJ attorneys to consider seeking dismissal if in the best interests of the government—as the Seventh Circuit noted, the FCA does not indicate “how, if at all,” courts are “to review the government’s decision to dismiss.” Circuit Courts have taken divergent views in answering that question.

Circuit Court Decisions

The D.C. Circuit, in Swift v. United States, 318 F.3d 250 (D.C. Cir. 2003), decided that the government has an “unfettered right” to dismiss based on the Executive branch’s “historical prerogative” to decline to prosecute a case. The Ninth Circuit, in U.S. ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp., 151 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Tenth Circuit in Ridenour v. KaiserHill Co., LLC, 397 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2005), imposed a rational-relation test: the government must establish a rational relation between dismissal and the accomplishment of a valid government purpose. If the government satisfies this test, the burden shifts to relator to show that dismissal is fraudulent, arbitrary and capricious, or illegal. So far, the Supreme Court has declined to step in, denying certiorari in April 2020 in United States ex rel. Schneider v. JP Morgan Chase Bank on the question of whether the government’s dismissal decisions constitute an “unreviewable exercise of prosecutorial authority.” Now, however, the Seventh Circuit has articulated a new standard, relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) governing voluntary dismissals by plaintiffs. Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Weighs in on Government Dismissal Authority under the FCA”

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: