Unanimous Supreme Court Says Veteran-Owned Small Business Preferences Reign
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.20.16
On June 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court in Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. U.S. ruled that 38 U.S.C. § 8127 requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to apply the “Rule of Two” and, if met, give preference to veteran-owned small businesses (VOSBs) when awarding any contract over the dollar thresholds in subsections (b) and (c). The Court soundly rejected both the Federal Circuit’s and the VA’s position that subsection (d)’s prefatory clause somehow relaxed the plain, mandatory language of the clause providing that the preferences “shall” apply, and the VA’s newly (and untimely) raised argument that subsection (d) does not apply to orders under Federal Supply Schedule contracts, setting the stage for a notable increase in awards of VA FSS orders to VOSBs and incentivizing more VOSBs to pursue opportunities with the VA.
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
