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 | 7 min read | 11.02.26
DOL Finalizes PBM Fee Disclosure Requirements
On October 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) issued a 350-page final rule requiring providers of pharmacy benefit management services and their affiliated brokers and consultants to disclose fees and compensation received to fiduciaries of covered large, self-insured ERISA group health plans. According to DOL’s accompanying fact sheet, the disclosures will give employers more visibility into the payments PBMs may receive from various sources and help fiduciaries evaluate and monitor arrangements over time.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
