Is the Revolving Door Sticking?
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.17.18
Summary: In a late-breaking amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, Congress adopted the Senate’s amendment and included Section 1045, “Prohibition on Lobbying Activities With Respect to the Department of Defense by Certain Officers of the Armed Forces and Civilian Employees of the Department Within Two Years of Separation from Military Service or Employment with the Department” in the Act. There will now be a two-year preclusion on “engaging in any lobbying activity with respect to the Department of Defense” for retiring O-9 officers (three-star general officers) and above and their civilian counterparts (SES Tier III and above) and a 1-year preclusion on retiring O-7 and O-7 officers (one- and two-star officers) and their civilian counterparts (SES Tier I and II).
The restrictions apply to “[l]obbying contacts and other lobbying activities with covered executive branch officials with respect to the Department of Defense.” The new restrictions apply to lobbying the President, Vice President, their former colleagues at O-7 or above/SES Tier I and above, and certain other influential or policymaking individuals with respect to DoD laws, rules, and regulations as well as to supporting others behind the scenes in their lobbying efforts. There is a broad list of exceptions in the Lobbying Disclosure Act that would permit certain activities; but contractors would be well advised to offer training to their newly separated Department of Defense senior officials and assistance with determining what activities are permissible and impermissible.
When developing training, contractors should draw a distinction between acceptable behind the scenes work that does not involve representation back to the official’s former agency, and impermissible behind-the-scenes activity that could be considered lobbying.
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
