Category: Executive Actions

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

Dominique L. Casimir●

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:

Continue reading “Where Grant Litigation Stands After the Supreme Court’s Jurisdictional 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.

Continue reading “Supreme Court Weighs in for a Second Time on Jurisdiction over Grant Termination Cases”

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.

Continue reading “Trump Administration Increases Oversight of Federal Grants”

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.

Domestic Production of Pharmaceuticals: Are the Administration’s Efforts Enough?

Merle M. DeLancey, Jr. ●

The Administration issued Executive Order (“EO”) 14293: Regulatory Relief to Promote Domestic Production of Critical Medicines on May 5, 2025 (whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/regulatory-relief-to-promote-domestic-production-of-critical-medicines). The EO seeks to ease obstacles for drug manufacturers to establish or expand domestic production facilities. For example, it streamlines Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), Environmental Protection Agency, and Army Corps of Engineers reviews and inspections associated with building or expanding manufacturing facilities. These accelerated processes are intended to reduce a manufacturer’s cost to build or expand a facility with the intended result being lower prices for domestically produced drugs.

The EO also calls for enhanced FDA inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities. The inspections will be funded through increased fees imposed on foreign drug manufacturers. The likely result will be an increase in foreign drug production costs, which would lead to increased prices of foreign-produced drugs. Further, adding to the price of foreign drugs are the Administration’s proposed tariffs. If imposed, the tariffs could start at 15 percent and ratchet up to 150 percent and 250 percent over time.

The goal of increasing the prices of foreign-produced drugs is to enable domestically produced drugs to compete. Only time will tell whether the EO’s efforts will be enough to level the playing field. However, there are at least two obstacles that could prevent the Administration from reaching its goal.

Continue reading “Domestic Production of Pharmaceuticals: Are the Administration’s Efforts Enough?”

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.

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.

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.)

Continue reading “An Update on the DEI Certification Provision of Executive Order 14173”

Hybrid Event: Export Controls Amid Evolving Trump 2.0 Trade Dynamics: Policy Updates and Best Practices

April 29, 2025
12:00–2:00 p.m.
McLean, Virginia, or online

Blank Rome partners Anthony Rapa, partner & co-chair of the International Trade group, and Justin A. Chiarodo, partner & co-chair of the Government Contracts group, will join Sol Brody (Vice President, International Trade Licensing & Sanctions, BAE Systems, Inc.) to present the Association of Corporate Counsel National Capital Region’s (“ACC NCR”) hybrid event, “Export Controls Amid Evolving Trump 2.0 Trade Dynamics: Policy Updates and Best Practices,” on Tuesday, April 29, 2025. The event will be held from 12:00 to 2:00 p.m. in McLean, Virginia, with a virtual participation option available.

ABOUT THE PROGRAM

This hybrid (in-person and online) program will cover up-to-the minute developments in the export controls landscape, one of the linchpins of the Trump administration’s national security strategy and “America First” trade policy. This will include the latest regarding semiconductor export controls, controls relating to emerging technologies, China-focused restrictions, anticipated Russia-related developments, ramped-up government enforcement, and best practices in an ever-changing environment.

For more information and to register, please visit the registration page and select the “Speaker/Panelist” registration option to register for free.

Changes to Civil Rights Enforcement: New Executive Order Eliminates Disparate-Impact Liability in Federal Regulations

Dominique L. Casimir and Brooke T. Iley ●

On April 23, 2025, the President issued an Executive Order (“EO”) titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy” that seeks to drastically curtail the use of disparate-impact liability in federal regulations, marking a significant shift in the federal government’s approach to civil rights enforcement. What does this mean for companies going forward?

Background

Let’s start with a review of disparate-impact liability under civil rights laws. This concept refers to practices or policies that, while seemingly neutral, disproportionately affect members of a protected class. This type of liability does not require proof of intentional discrimination; instead, it focuses on the outcomes of the policies or practices.

For example, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, disparate-impact liability occurs when an employment practice adversely affects one group more than another, even if the practice appears neutral. If a plaintiff can show that a policy has a disproportionately negative effect on a protected class, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Disparate-impact liability is also recognized under several other federal and state civil rights laws.

The EO asserts that the foundational principle of the United States is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. The EO criticizes disparate-impact liability as a “pernicious movement” that, in the administration’s view, undermines meritocracy and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Disparate-impact liability, as described in the EO, is a legal doctrine that presumes unlawful discrimination based solely on statistical differences in outcomes among groups, even absent any discriminatory intent or facially discriminatory policy. The EO contends that this doctrine compels employers and businesses to consider race or other protected characteristics in decision-making, thereby encouraging racial balancing and undermining individual merit.

Read the full client alert on our website.

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%