1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Wait, What? Administration Now Designates “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” as Not Economically Significant

Wait, What? Administration Now Designates “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” as Not Economically Significant

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.10.16

In a sign that the Obama Administration may be preparing to rush the publication of the FAR Council’s final rules implementing the “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” executive order so as to avoid timing problems associated with the Congressional Review Act, the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (responsible for reviewing the rules before sending them to the FAR Secretariat for publication, discussed here) now lists the new rules as not “Economically Significant.” That determination allows the administration to avoid the requirements under EO 12866 to provide a more detailed assessment of the likely benefits and costs of the regulatory action, but it reverses the administration’s prior designation of these burdensome new compliance and reporting obligations, and it seems at odds with the designation of other rules, such as “Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed at One Eating Occasion” and “Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers,” as Economically Significant.

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