DoD Memo Recalls 'Essential' Civilian Workers
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.09.13
On October 5, Secretary Hagel issued guidance relating to DoD's implementation of the Pay Our Military Act (POMA), which passed just hours before the government "shutdown" at midnight on September 30 and provides for funding certain DoD functions while interim or full-year appropriations for FY 2014 are not in effect. The memo, crafted in consultation with DOJ, states that POMA permits funding for active duty military and civilian employees "whose responsibilities provide support to service members providing active service and their families" and "contribute to sustaining capabilities and Force Readiness" (a list which at least initially did not include DCAA auditors, CIO functions, or DCMO functions, although it appears that at least some auditors at some locations have been recalled) and permits expenditure of "such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to contractors of DoD who[m] the Secretary determines are providing support to members of the Armed Forces in active service" (though the memo notes that DoD lawyers are still analyzing what that means).
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
