1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Beating Others to the Punch, DHS Proposes CUI Changes to Acquisition Regulations

Beating Others to the Punch, DHS Proposes CUI Changes to Acquisition Regulations

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.07.17

On the last full day of the Obama Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a proposed rule that would make several amendments to the Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) regarding Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). Despite recent developments, the proposed rule is open for comment until March 20, 2017, and seeks to impose several obligations, including: (1) contractors handling CUI under a contract must be in compliance with a bevy of DHS policies and procedures at the time of contract award; (2) contractors operating federal information systems must meet numerous information security obligations prior to handling CUI on those systems; (3) contractors must report known or suspected incidents affecting CUI within one to eight hours, depending on the type of CUI at issue; and (4) contractors must adhere to specific breach notification and credit monitoring requirements in response to incidents affecting personally identifiable information (PII), a subset of CUI.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights