Summary of COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Stimulus Legislation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.27.20
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), a $2 trillion stimulus package, was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives by a voice vote on March 27, 2020 despite opposition from certain Republican members who were seeking a roll call vote. The package was approved unanimously by the U.S. Senate with a vote of 96-0 on March 25, 2020. It is the third coronavirus emergency response bill considered this month in Congress, which passed the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act on March 6 and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act on March 18.
The CARES Act was first drafted by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), though after significant resistance from Senate Democrats, the final bill text was principally negotiated by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). The broad stimulus package is viewed as a compromise and includes:
- Federal grants, loans, and other assistance for small businesses and other businesses disproportionately affected by the coronavirus outbreak
- Additional funding for hospitals and doctors as they brace for continued and increased pressure on their workforce and systems
- Direct financial assistance to individual taxpayers
- An expansion of unemployment insurance
The following PDF provides a summary of the key provisions included in the Act.
Contacts
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].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
