Category: Regulatory Compliance and Ethics

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”

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 ●


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.

What GSA Contractors Need to Know About the New FAR Deviation for Revoked Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity

Dominique L. Casimir and Amanda C. DeLaPerriere ●

On February 18, 2025, the General Services Administration (“GSA”) announced that it issued GSA Class Deviation CD-2025-04 (“the GSA Class Deviation”) effective February 15, 2025, to implement Executive Order (“EO”) 14173 titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which, as Blank Rome has previously written about here and here, revoked the landmark 60-year-old EO 11246 titled “Equal Employment Opportunity.”

Continue reading “What GSA Contractors Need to Know About the New FAR Deviation for Revoked Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity”

Webinar: Navigating the Impact of President Trump’s Executive Orders on DEI Initiatives

Blank Rome-Hosted Live Webinar
February 19, 2025
1:00–2:00 p.m. EST | 10:00–11:00 a.m. PST


Within days of the new administration taking office, there have been tectonic shifts in the employment law and government contracts landscape affecting all employers, large and small, across every industry and every sector of the economy.

The Executive Order “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” has implications for any company that has adopted a formal diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) policy and puts companies on notice that the new administration considers DEI policies and programs to be “illegal” if they have the effect of reverse discrimination under federal anti-discrimination laws. The Executive Order requires the heads of all federal agencies to submit a plan outlining specific measures to deter illegal discrimination or preferences. Additionally, each agency must identify up to nine major corporations or institutions for compliance investigations on DEI violations and the Attorney General has been tasked with developing strategies to deter “illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI,” in the broader private sector. This plan will be presented in 120 days.

The Executive Order also has drastic implications for federal contractors. It revokes Executive Order 11246, which for 60 years has required federal contractors adopt affirmative action plans. The Executive Order gives federal contractors until April 21, 2025, to end their compliance with Executive Order 11246. All federal contractors will now be expected to certify that they “do not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws” in all contracts with federal agencies.

In addition to this Executive Order, other directives on gender and DEI efforts and civil and criminal enforcement across the private and public sector carry both direct and indirect implications for companies. This landscape is evolving rapidly, influenced by guidance from new agency heads—including the Department of Justice—as well as emerging state-level pressures. Special guest speaker Lisa R. Davis, Senior Managing Director and Co-Lead, DEI Advisory at Teneo, will join Dominique, Anthony, and Brooke to explore the intricate implications of these Executive Orders and offer actionable insights for navigating and communicating changes effectively.

Blank Rome partners Dominique L. Casimir, Anthony B. Haller, and Brooke T. Iley, along with Lisa R. Davis, Senior Managing Director and Co-Lead, DEI Advisory at global CEO consulting and advisory firm Teneo, will serve as speakers for the 60-minute, Blank Rome-hosted live webinar, “Navigating the Impact of President Trump’s Executive Orders on DEI Initiatives,” taking place on Wednesday, February 19, 2025, from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m. EST / 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. PST.

For more information and to register, please visit our website: Navigating the Impact of President Trump’s Executive Orders on DEI Initiatives.

GAO Rejects Notion of a Pre-FPR “Continuous Registration Requirement” for SAM

Luke W. Meier and Amanda C. DeLaPerriere ●

The last week saw GAO sustain two protests that should put the nail in the SAM “continuous registration” coffin.

The Federal Acquisition Regulatory (“FAR”) Council recently revised the standard System for Award Management (“SAM”) registration clause (FAR 52.204-7) to make clear there is no “continuous registration requirement”—contractors need to be registered in SAM only at the time they submit their final, legally-binding proposal.

In two recent decisions, GAO has confirmed that the same was (and is) true under the prior version of FAR 52.204-7 as well. That is, if an agency allows an offeror to submit a revised proposal, and the offeror is properly registered in SAM when that final proposal is submitted, it does not matter if there was some SAM registration failure at an earlier stage of the procurement.  The offeror is eligible, and it would be unreasonable for an agency to eliminate an offeror or terminate an award based on a pre-FPR SAM flaw.

In UNICA-BPA JV, LLC, B-422580.3, the protester (“UNICA”) had an active SAM registration when it submitted its final revised proposal, but the Agency later eliminated UNICA from the competition based on the fact that UNICA was not registered in SAM at the time of its initial proposal. That was unreasonable, GAO found, because UNICA had in fact met the stated requirement to be registered in SAM “when submitting an offer,” as the FAR defines “offer” as a proposal that can form a binding contract, and that definition applied only to UNICA’s final, legally-binding proposal, which was compliant. GAO thus found the Agency acted unreasonably by eliminating UNICA from the competition and sustained UNICA’s protest.

In Metris LLC, B-422996.2, the Agency proposed to take corrective action to terminate the award to Metris for having a break in its SAM registration between the time of the initial proposal submission and its final proposal submission. GAO found that Metris’s initial proposal was extinguished when Metris submitted – and the Agency accepted – Metris’s final proposal revision. Because Metris was registered in SAM at the time of the final proposal revision, Metris had an active SAM registration when it submitted its offer, in accordance with FAR 52.204-7. GAO thus recommended that the agency abandon its plans to terminate Metris’s contract award, and instead “maintain its existing award to Metris.”

These cases follow the legal reasoning of Hanford Tank Disposition Alliance, LLC v. United States, 173 Fed. Cl. 269, 312-319 (2024), and should deter agencies from eliminating any more offerors over pre-FPR SAM issues.

Also published in National Law Review at GAO Confirms No Continuous SAM Registration Requirement, January 17, 2025.

The FAR Council Publishes Long-Awaited CUI Rule

Michael Joseph Montalbano ●

On January 15, 2025, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) Council issued its long-awaited “CUI Rule.” CUI, or Controlled Unclassified Information, is information that the government creates or possesses, or that an entity creates or possesses for or on behalf of the government, that a law, regulation, or governmentwide policy requires or permits an agency to handle using safeguarding or dissemination controls. For nearly 15 years, contractors have struggled to determine what information meets this definition. The CUI rule is an opportunity for the federal government to finally provide contractors with the guidance needed to better identify and safeguard the CUI they receive in connection with their federal contracts.

Continue reading “The FAR Council Publishes Long-Awaited CUI Rule”

Department of Defense Issues Final CMMC Rule

Michael Joseph Montalbano ●

On October 11, 2024, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) issued the first part of its final rule establishing the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (“CMMC”) program. As expected, the final rule requires companies entrusted with national security information to implement cybersecurity standards at progressively advanced levels, (CMMC level 1, CMMC level 2, and CMMC level 3) depending on the type and sensitivity of the information. While the final rule largely tracks the proposed rule issued in December 2023, we outline below several notable updates DoD included in the final rule and their potential impacts on DoD contractors.

Continue reading “Department of Defense Issues Final CMMC Rule”

BIS Issues New Export Controls Targeting GAAFET, Quantum, and Additive Manufacturing, and Ushers in New Age of Plurilateral Export Controls: 5 Key Takeaways

Anthony Rapa, Alan G. Kashdan, and Brendan S. Saslow ●

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) recently issued an interim final rule (“IFR”) under the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) imposing licensing requirements for exports to all destinations worldwide of certain gate all-around field effect transistor (“GAAFET”) technology, quantum computing items, advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment (“SME”), additive manufacturing equipment, and aerospace coating systems technology.

The new measures are notable not only for their restrictive application to all destinations in the world—an unusual type of control under the EAR—but also for their institution of a new license exception, “Implemented Export Controls” (“IEC”), that allows for exports of the newly controlled items to specified “like-minded” countries that have instituted comparable export controls that are harmonized with U.S. controls.

The new controls are effective immediately as of September 6, 2024, with the exception of controls over certain quantum items, which take effect November 5, 2024, the cutoff date for public comment on the IFR.

Read the full client alert on our website.

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%