In with the New: Trump Freezes Pending and Non-Issued Obama-Era Regulations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.23.17
On January 20, 2017, President Trump's Chief of Staff Reince Priebus issued a memorandum to the heads of the executive departments and agencies calling for a regulatory freeze pending review – a practice that is relatively routine for new incoming presidential administrations. Specifically, the memorandum prohibits agencies from sending any regulation to the Office of Federal Register (OFR) prior to review and approval; requires agencies to immediately withdraw unpublished regulations for review and approval; and mandates that agencies temporarily postpone the implementation of published, but not yet effective, regulations for 60 days. Regulations subject to statutory or judicial deadlines are excluded from the aforementioned actions, but agencies must timely identify them to the OMB Director. Agencies also may identify regulations they believe should not be subject to the aforementioned procedures, namely those affecting "critical health, safety, financial, or national security matters, or for some other reason."
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
