Comment Period for "Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces" Extended – A Bit
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.16.15
In response to several requests from industry to extend the a 60-day comment period for the proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and guidance implementing the "Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order," the FAR Council and the DoL have extended the comment period to August 11, 2015 (from the current date of July 27, 2015). As discussed previously here, the NPRM and related DOL guidance (available by PDF here and here and explained in more detail on our government contracts blog) would add onerous labor compliance reporting requirements for all contractors and subcontractors on contracts valued over $500,000 (and on non-COTS subcontracts valued over $500,000) and inject uncertainty and subjectivity into the procurement process through the addition of "Agency Labor Compliance Advisors" advising the CO with respect to responsibility determinations based upon a review of the contractor or subcontractor’s labor compliance data over a three-year period, which has prompted many contractors and trade associations to express their concerns about the scope and potential impacts of the Proposed Rule and Guidance.
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
