1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |SDB Preference Constitutional

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 | 5 min read | 07.20.26

DOJ and DHS Issue Interim Final Rule on State and Local Counter-Drone Authority Under the SAFER SKIES Act

On July 6, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published an Interim Final Rule (IFR) setting up a new federal framework that allows state, local, Tribal, and territorial (SLTT) law enforcement and correctional agencies to detect, track, and, in some cases, disable or seize drones. The rule directly affects SLTT agencies looking to stand up counter-drone programs, as well as drone and counter-drone technology companies whose products will be subject to federal review and approval. Although the IFR bypassed the Administrative Procedure Act’s standard notice-and-comment process on good cause grounds — citing the statutory 180-day deadline and urgent public safety needs — the rule is already legally binding and effective as of July 1, 2026. The Departments are nonetheless accepting post-promulgation comments through September 4, 2026....

View All Insights