1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Final Rule on Supply Chain Risk Fails to Provide Additional Guidance, Protection, or Relief from Uncertain Application

Final Rule on Supply Chain Risk Fails to Provide Additional Guidance, Protection, or Relief from Uncertain Application

Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.02.15

On October 30, DoD published a final rule (a) requiring evaluation of supply chain risk when acquiring information technology that is either a covered National Security System ("NSS"), part of a covered NSS, or in support of a covered NSS; and (b) authorizing DoD to exclude primes or subs from a particular procurement if they fail to mitigate identified supply chain risks adequately. DoD made relatively modest changes to the 2013 interim rule (e.g., removing the flow-down requirement applicable to subs at any tier) but largely rejected industry input (e.g., declining to identify specific standards or controls to mitigate supply chain risk and declining to create a mechanism for challenging exclusion from a particular source selection).


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....

View All Insights