1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Court Limits Good Faith Presumptions Of Government

Court Limits Good Faith Presumptions Of Government

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.14.05

In a scholarly analysis that traces the history of the presumptions of regularity and good faith duties, Judge Wolski of the Court of Federal Claims in Tecom, Inc. v. U.S. (June 27, 2005) explains the proper scope of the presumptions. Among the conclusions he draws are that (a) subjective animus and the presumption of good faith conduct of government officials has no relevance in considering a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (b) clear and convincing evidence is only needed when fraud or quasi-criminal wrongdoing is alleged; and (c) the presumption of regularity generally means only that the predicate acts that were required of public officials can be presumed upon proof of their natural results, which can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights