COFC Holds that USAID Contractors Properly Pleaded Breach of Contract by Improper Mass Termination in Bad Faith/Abuse of Discretion
What You Need to Know
Key takeaway #1
A complaint need only allege a plausible claim for relief on its face
Key takeaway #2
The complaint was replete with allegations sufficient to plead bad faith by alleging public statements by various officials
Key takeaway #3
Government’s partial payment of termination costs was not defense to the breach claim where improper termination entitles contractors to termination costs as well as breach damages
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.17.26
In Danziger et al. v. U.S., No. 25-cv-1241 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 10, 2026) (a Crowell & Moring case), the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) denied the government’s motion to dismiss a complaint seeking breach of contract damages for improper terminations in bad faith and/or abuse of discretion. The case involves hundreds of contractors for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), who were terminated in 2025 in connection with the dismantling of USAID. The government sought to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim, arguing that the complaint failed to sufficiently plead bad faith or abuse of discretion. The court rejected these arguments, noting that the complaint was “replete with allegations implicating bad faith,” and specifically rejected the “peculiar notion” “that governmental misconduct is immunized when a contracting officer acts pursuant to directives from higher-ranking officials.” The court also held that the government’s payment of certain termination costs was no defense to the contractors’ breach claim and confirmed that an improper termination for convenience entitles contractors to termination costs as well as breach damages.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.14.26
No-Fly Zones for Drones: FAA Proposes New Rules Over Critical Infrastructure
On May 6, 2026, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published a long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would create a formal process for designating drone-free zones — known as Unmanned Aircraft Flight Restrictions (UAFRs) — over critical infrastructure facilities. The proposed rule has significant implications for the entire drone ecosystem. Facility operators across a broad range of industries would gain a potential pathway to restrict unauthorized drone access to their airspace, while commercial drone operators and companies that rely on UAS services face new compliance obligations, operational constraints, and potential criminal liability in designated zones.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.14.26
Client Alert | 6 min read | 05.12.26






