Federal Circuit Clarifies Prejudice Review In Bid Protest Cases
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.26.05
Explaining away seemingly contradictory precedent, the Federal Circuit in Bannum, Inc. v. U.S. (Apr. 21, 2005) clarified that, while the merits are reviewed on appeal de novo under the Administrative Procedure Act's "arbitrary and capricious or in violation of law" standard, the determination of whether a violation of law is prejudicial requires fact finding by the Court of Federal Claims and is reviewed for "clear error." Applying the clear error standard to this case, the appellate court found none in the trial court's determination that the violation had not prejudiced the protester.
Insights
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.17.25
After hosting a series of workshops and issuing multiple rounds of materials, including enforcement notices, checklists, templates, and other guidance, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has proposed regulations to implement the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261) (both as amended by SB 219), which require large U.S.-based businesses operating in California to disclose greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate-related risks. CARB also published a Notice of Public Hearing and an Initial Statement of Reasons along with the proposed regulations. While CARB’s final rules were statutorily required to be promulgated by July 1, 2025, these are still just proposals. CARB’s proposed rules largely track earlier guidance regarding how CARB intends to define compliance obligations, exemptions, and key deadlines, and establish fee programs to fund regulatory operations.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.17.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.17.25
Executive Order Tries to Thwart “Onerous” AI State Regulation, Calls for National Framework
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.17.25
The new EU Bioeconomy Strategy: a regulatory framework in transition
