1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Slamming the Courthouse Door: No Review of Alleged Statutory Violations in Task Order Procurements

Slamming the Courthouse Door: No Review of Alleged Statutory Violations in Task Order Procurements

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.19.14

In SRA In'l v. U.S. (Sept. 15, 2014), the Federal Circuit held that the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over a protest of an agency's OCI waiver made in the context of a task order procurement. The Federal Circuit found that the divestiture of jurisdiction over task order procurements in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act is complete and does not have an exception for alleged violations of statute or regulation.


Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...