Army Can't Bypass Competition Without Court Scrutiny
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.18.04
Noting the Army "may not disregard" legal constraints "under the auspices of an unusual and compelling urgency," the Court of Federal Claims, in Filtration Development Co. v. U.S. (Feb. 3, 2004), held that a court can review an Army decision to bypass competitive procedures on the basis of "urgent and compelling circumstances" even when those circumstances – rapid deterioration of helicopters in Iraq – involve military needs of mobilized forces. The court rejected the argument that it had no standards against which to review the Army decision, stating that it could review the Army's written justification for rationality and the "fact that the ultimate destination . . . is Iraq does not alter this proposition."
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
