1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Is the Revolving Door Sticking?

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.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....