CORRECTION: Congress to Vote on Radically Altering CFC's Bid Protest Timeliness Rules
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.15.12
Yesterday we erroneously reported that a provision to amend the Tucker Act with respect to the timeliness rules of Court of Federal Claims protests had been included in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act reported by the House Armed Services Committee. We have learned that this proposed legislation from the Department of Defense was ultimately not included in the bill, as reported, perhaps because such amendments to Title 28 of the U.S. Code are within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, but we will continue to track this proposed legislation.
May.14.2012
REVISED -- see above. Late last week, the House Armed Services Committee passed a committee mark version of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act that includes a provision that would amend the Tucker Act to adopt all of the GAO's timeliness rules for bid protests. If the bill is signed into law in its current form, protesters would no longer be able to file Court of Federal Claims bid protests after an unsuccessful effort at the GAO, but would be required to select one forum or the other.
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
