Cyber Barbarians & Federal Data Breaches In 2006
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.25.06
In 2006, the lost Veterans Affairs laptop compromising the personal information of 26.5 million veterans represented just one of the hordes of information security breaches that flooded federal agencies, triggering Congressional hearings, GAO and IG investigations, and new OMB information security standards for federal agencies and contractors alike. In his article "When Cyber Barbarians Storm the Security Walls: The Mounting Risks of Security Breaches to Federal Agencies & Contractors" published in the Federal Contracts Report on October 3, 2006 (http://www.crowell.com/pdf/Security-Breach_Bodenheimer.pdf), David Z. Bodenheimer identifies the evolving rules governing federal information security and explains how the escalating federal outsourcing trends mean greater opportunities for contractors in the IT and cybersecurity business, but also that such opportunities come with mounting risks of tougher Congressional scrutiny, federal enforcement actions, and third-party litigation.
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.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
