SDB Preference Constitutional
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.02.04
In Rothe Dev. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Def. (W.D. Tex. July 2, 2004), the district court found that, although the initial enactments of a small disadvantaged business preference in DOD procurements were unconstitutional, in the 2003 version Congress sufficiently heeded the Supreme Court's affirmative action decisions in the past few years and supplied a "strong basis in the evidence" of racial discrimination to support the reenactment of the preference and withstand a facial challenge. The court brushed aside the evidence that the Asian-Americans benefited by the preference in the particular procurement were financially well off, noting that such evidence is only relevant to an administrative challenge to the SDB designation, not a constitutional challenge.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 03.24.26
California Considering A Massive Expansion of Its Antitrust Laws
Legislative efforts to significantly expand California’s antitrust laws are working their way through the state legislature. The most comprehensive overhaul is Assembly Bill 1776 — the Competition and Opportunity in Markets for a Prosperous, Equitable and Transparent Economy (COMPETE) Act, introduced by Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, on March 23, 2026. AB 1776 is modeled closely after draft legislation recommended by the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) in December. AB 1776 would not only significantly expand potential liability for single-firm conduct and monopolization but would also explicitly decouple California antitrust analysis from certain federal standards. Companies doing business in California should pay close attention to AB 1776 because of its potentially dramatic impact, including increased exposure to antitrust litigation and increased compliance costs.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.23.26
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.23.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 03.23.26
