Category: Executive Actions

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.

Rescission of Regulations Without Notice and Comment? What’s Next for Regulated Industries in the Deregulation Climate

Dominique L. Casimir and Christina Manfredi McKinley ●

We previously wrote about President Trump’s February Executive Order identifying deregulation as a top administration priority (here and here). That Executive Order, 14219 (the “Deregulation EO”), directed all executive departments and agencies to identify regulations falling within certain enumerated categories of regulations. More recently, on April 9, 2025, the President issued a memorandum providing further direction to executive departments and agencies regarding implementation of the Deregulation EO (available here). This memorandum addresses how the President envisions that Executive Branch agencies will go about rescinding regulations. And—spoiler alert—the vision for rescinding regulations is a departure from the typical notice-and-comment process. 

The Specifics

Emphasizing adherence to recent Supreme Court decisions and the use of the “good cause” exception in the Administrative Procedure Act for expedited rulemaking (that is, rulemaking/rescission without the constraints of notice and comment), the memorandum instructs agencies, first, as part of the review-and-repeal efforts required by the Deregulation EO, to assess each existing regulation’s lawfulness under the following United States Supreme Court decisions:

  1. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024);
  2. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022);
  3. SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024);
  4. Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015);
  5. Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023);
  6. Ohio v. EPA, 603 U.S. 279 (2024);
  7. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021);
  8. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023);
  9. Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022); and
  10. Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14 (2020). 

Read the full client alert on our website.

All-Points Bulletin for Defense Contractors: If You’re 15% Behind Schedule or 15% Over Budget, You Need a Strategy

Dominique L. Casimir ●

On April 9, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (“EO”) titled Modernizing Defense Acquisitions and Spurring Innovation in the Defense Industrial Base. This EO seeks to overhaul many aspects of defense acquisition in order to enhance the military capabilities and streamline the Department of Defense’s (“DOD”) procurement processes. While every presidential administration seeks to streamline and facilitate defense procurement, this EO contains noteworthy approaches that defense contractors should be aware of. For instance, the EO suggests that the government has an appetite for “risk” when it comes to DOD procurements: “We will also modernize the duties and composition of the defense acquisition workforce, as well as incentivize and reward risk-taking and innovation from these personnel.”

Continue reading “All-Points Bulletin for Defense Contractors: If You’re 15% Behind Schedule or 15% Over Budget, You Need a Strategy”

FAR on the Chopping Block: Potential Impacts on Protests

Elizabeth N. Jochum and Robyn N. Burrows ●

As those in the federal contracting community wait anxiously for rumored and hinted at changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), we are beginning to evaluate how certain of those changes might most impact our clients. In the first of a series engaging in some mild—or wild, depending on your outlook—speculation about these potential changes, we take a look at how the removal of certain FAR requirements might impact bid protests.

One of the cardinal rules of bid protests is that protests not alleging solicitation improprieties must be filed no later than 10 days after the basis of protest is known or should have been known. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(b). There is a key exception, however—for procurements under which a debriefing is requested. If requested, a debriefing is required, and the initial protest cannot be filed before the debriefing date offered and must be filed no later than 10 days after the debriefing concludes. In other words, a protester’s timeliness clock does not start ticking until the debriefing concludes.

Continue reading “FAR on the Chopping Block: Potential Impacts on Protests”

VHA and DLA Enter Into Another Interagency Agreement: Déjà Vu All Over Again?

Merle M. DeLancey, Jr. ●

In March 2025, the Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”) and the Veterans Health Administration (“VHA”) entered into another interagency agreement. The agencies announced that the purpose of the 10-year, $3.6 billion agreement is to align supply chain requirements and centralize logistical support DLA will provide to all VHA healthcare facilities nationwide.

The 2025 agreement follows three DLA and VHA interagency agreements entered into between 2018 and 2020. In 2018, DLA and VHA entered into an agreement under which VHA began transitioning its medical supplies purchasing to DLA’s Electronic Catalog (“ECAT”). In 2019, the agencies entered into another interagency agreement which allowed VHA to access medical and surgical items by leveraging the DLA supply chain and provided for creating a centralized ordering system, rather than using the separate VHA and DLA systems.

Continue reading “VHA and DLA Enter Into Another Interagency Agreement: Déjà Vu All Over Again?”

Attention Department of Labor Contractors and Grantees: A Federal Court Hits Pause on Executive Orders Related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Dominique L. Casimir ●

Federal courts continue to grapple with challenges to President Trump’s executive orders (“EOs”) related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), particularly EO 14151, Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing, and EO 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity. As we’ve noted in our coverage of the litigation first filed in the District Court of Maryland, there has been a sense of whiplash among the courts, with the District Court initially issuing a nationwide injunction that was then stayed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now a second federal court has weighed in, issuing a new, nationwide temporary restraining order (“TRO”). This new TRO is more limited than the prior preliminary injunction issued by the District Court of Maryland, in that the new TRO only applies to Department of Labor (“DOL”) contractors and grantees. Nevertheless, the Court’s reasoning could be helpful to the contractors and grantees of other agencies facing renewed demands to execute the DEI Certification.

Continue reading “Attention Department of Labor Contractors and Grantees: A Federal Court Hits Pause on Executive Orders Related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”

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.

Continue reading “A Roadmap for Terminations for Convenience in the DOGE-Era”

The Government Contractor: False Claims Act Liability Based On A DEI Program? Let’s Think It Through

Dominique L. Casimir, Jennifer A. Short, and Robyn N. Burrows ●

Jennifer A. Short headshot image

One of the more attention-grabbing aspects of Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” is the specter of False Claims Act liability for federal contractors based on their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. Many workplace DEI programs have been viewed as a complement to federal anti-discrimination law—a tool for reducing the risk of discrimination lawsuits. The new administration, however, views DEI programs as a potential source of discrimination. EO 14173 proclaims that “critical and influential institutions of American society … have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) that can violate the civil- rights laws of this Nation.” To counteract this potential “illegal” use of DEI programs, the Trump administration is leveraging the FCA, a powerful anti-fraud statute, to enforce its policy within the Federal Government contractor community.

We discuss below the framework of the FCA, how it might apply to federal contractor DEI programs under the administration’s orders, and potential hurdles the Government may face in pursuing FCA claims based on a contractor’s allegedly illegal DEI program. We recommend steps contractors can take to mitigate potential FCA risks when evaluating their own DEI programs.

To read the full article, please click here.

“False Claims Act Liability Based On A DEI Program? Let’s Think It Through,” by Dominique Casimir, Jennifer Short, and Robyn Burrows was published in The Government Contractor, Volume 67 Issue 10, on March 12, 2025.

This article originally appeared as a Blank Rome LLP alert.

DEI Litigation Whiplash: Appellate Court Allows the Government to Move Forward with Challenged DEI-Related Executive Orders

Dominique L. Casimir and Brooke T. Iley ●

Uncertainty for companies when making business decisions is a new norm. Tariffs aren’t going to be the only thing that is on again and off again. The same is happening with directives governing diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives. In the first two days of President Trump’s second term, he signed two DEI-related executive orders (“EOs”), EO 14151 (Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing) and EO 14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity). While they were in effect, these EOs caused widespread concern throughout the public and private sector as entities scrambled to understand the implications for their businesses. Approximately a month later, a federal judge in Maryland issued a preliminary injunction that stopped the government from implementing key provisions of the two EOs. However, the tide turned on Friday, March 14, 2025, when a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted the government’s motion to stay the injunction pending appeal. This ruling empowers the government to resume the implementation of EO 14151 and EO 14173.

While the preliminary injunction was in effect, the government was precluded from (1) terminating “equity-related” contracts and grants pursuant to EO 14151, (2) requiring that government contractors and grantees sign a DEI certification pursuant to EO 14173, and (3) bringing any False Claims Act (“FCA”) or other enforcement action premised on the DEI certification. (As we have previously explained, the certification requirement in EO 14173 is intended to deter contractor and grantee DEI-programs by invoking the specter of FCA liability.)

Now that the injunction is stayed, an emboldened government will likely move swiftly to terminate contracts and grants that it views as being “equity-related” and to require contractors and grantees to execute the DEI certification. We have previously recommended general steps that contractors and grantees can take as they navigate a rapidly changing environment in which the president signs new EOs almost daily. Below, we offer recommendations specific to the government’s renewed ability to implement the previously enjoined provisions of the DEI-related EOs.

Read the full client alert on our website.

Five Practical Tips for Government Contractors Navigating the Executive Order Chaos

Merle M. DeLancey, Jr. ●

Federal government contractors are living in a climate of uncertainty. Executive orders affecting government contracts are being issued at a rapid pace. The executive orders tend to be broad and high-level with regulatory guidance to follow. This is not abnormal. However, the sheer number of executive orders and the magnitude of the regulatory changes they seek to impose is a new phenomenon. Contractors are left to determine what they should be doing, if anything, and when. Set forth below are practical suggestions for contractors to consider during this unsettling time.[1]

  1. Communicate with your Contracting Officer

During the chaos, it is important to communicate with your contracting officer. Only contracting officers are authorized to modify contracts. Do not blindly accept direction from contract specialists or others who purport to be speaking on behalf of the government. Direction received from anyone other than a contracting officer should be immediately relayed to your contracting officer with a request for clarification or guidance. 

Also, be prepared for unclear responses from your contracting officer. Like you, contracting officers also are living through this chaos. They may not have received clear direction to pass on to contractors. Aim to keep your communications with your contracting officer respectful. 

  1. Executive Orders are not Contract Modifications

Remember that executive orders are not contract modifications. Contractors should not change their contract performance or their compliance with, for example, socioeconomic programs unless or until a contract modification signed by a contracting officer. This may be difficult for contractors when they think they can see the writing on the wall. But regulatory and policy changes can occur and, thus, even well-intentioned contractors might make changes they did not need to make or that are different from what is required from a formal contract modification.

  1. Continue Contract Performance

Along the same lines, contractors need to continue contract performance in accordance with the four corners of the contract unless or until a contract is modified. Failure to do so could be considered breach of contract. With the plethora of contract terminations being reported, contractors should not put themselves in the crosshairs by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of their contract, thereby giving the government a basis to terminate for default.  And remember, if you believe the government has breached or improperly changed a contract, a contractor is required to continue performance and seek relief in accordance with the FAR Disputes clause.

  1. Communicate with your Subcontractors

Just as a prime contractor craves concrete guidance from a contracting officer regarding what to do, subcontractors also need guidance and oftentimes more so, because they are unable to communicate directly with the government. Thus, a good practice for prime contractors is to pass along any guidance received from a contracting officer to its subcontractors. Prime contractors also should remind their subcontractors about their obligations to continue contract performance.

  1. Prepare to Defend Your Contract

Contractors also should be prepared to explain the importance of their contracts to the government. To be proactive, contractors should draft narratives explaining the importance of their work and how their performance exceeds contract requirements. Contracts that are considered to “add value” are less likely to be found on the so-called “chopping block.” If appropriate, a contractor should consider including recommendations, for example, regarding how its work can be performed more effectively or efficiently. 

We hope this practical advice will help you navigate the government contracting chaos until the dust settles. 

[1] See our previous related blog posts: Understanding President Trump’s Executive Orders on DEI: Implications for Federal Contractors;  What Contractors Facing Terminations, Stop-Work Orders, and Suspension of Work Orders Directed by the Trump Administration Need to Know;  Fixed Price Contracts: Government Contractors Beware;  What GSA Contractors Need to Know About the New FAR Deviation for Revoked Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity;  Preliminary Injunction Granted Related to DEI-Related Executive Orders—Takeaways for Government Contractors;  President Trump Signs New Executive Order: “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Cost Efficiency Initiative”—What Federal Contractors Need to Know.

Today’s General Counsel referenced this post in an article on March 17, 2025. Read the article here: Risk Management for Federal Contractors During Regulatory Changes.