Contracting Authority Analyzed In 3 Cases
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.16.06
In a spate of recent decisions by different Court of Federal Claims judges, the proper scope of contracting authority is closely analyzed. In Brunner v. U.S. (May 2, 2001), Judge Wolski provides a treatise that concludes that apparent authority, contrary to all reports, is alive and well in government contracts and is only limited by publicly available laws and regulations that restrict the government agent's power to contract; in Arakaki v. U.S. (May 30, 2006), Judge Hewitt disagrees; and in Telenor Satellite Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (June 2, 2006), handled by C&M, Judge Baskir discusses both implied authority and ratification when finding both for a bailment agreement.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.20.26
SCOTUS Holds IEEPA Tariffs Unlawful
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, negating the President’s ability to impose tariffs under IEEPA. The case stemmed from President Trump’s invocation of IEEPA to levy tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and other countries, citing national emergencies. Challengers argued—and the Court agreed—that IEEPA does not delegate tariff authority to the President. The power to tariff is vested in Congress by the Constitution and cannot be delegated to the President absent express authority from Congress.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 02.20.26
Section 5949 Proposed Rule Puts the FAR Council's Chips on the Table
Client Alert | 5 min read | 02.20.26
Trump Administration Pursues MFN Pricing for Prescription Drugs
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.19.26
Proposed NY Legislation May Mean Potential Criminal Charges for Unlicensed Crypto Firms
