Department of Defense Issues Defense Industrial Base Memorandum
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.20.20
Following the March 19, 2020 guidance issued by the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) on “essential” critical infrastructure workers during COVID-19, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a memorandum today reiterating that the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) is identified as a critical infrastructure sector by DHS, and that those who work in such sectors are expected to maintain normal work schedules. The DHS guidance identified the DIB essential critical infrastructure workforce as those who provide “essential services to meet national security commitments,” including aerospace; mechanical and software engineers; manufacturing/production workers; IT support; security staff; security personnel; intelligence support; aircraft and weapon systems mechanics and maintainers; suppliers of medical supplies and pharmaceuticals; and critical transportation. The DoD memorandum adds some additional details, stating that DoD contracts and subcontracts that support the development, production, testing, fielding or sustainment of weapons systems/software systems or the manning, training, equipping, deploying, or support of military forces, are considered essential critical infrastructure that should maintain normal work schedules.
However, DoD contracts and subcontracts that support tasks such as providing office supplies, recreations support or lawn care are not considered essential. DoD notes that it will continue to assess conditions, and that companies should continue to follow guidance issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as State and local government officials regarding strategies to contain the spread of COVID-19. Crowell & Moring is standing by to assist with COVID-related questions.
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.
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
