Expressly Does Not Require Being Expressed: Fed. Circuit Finds Salary Costs for Lobbying are Expressly Unallowable
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.22.19
In Raytheon Co. v. Sec’y of Def., No. 2018-2371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the ASBCA’s decision that salary costs for lobbying activities are expressly unallowable under FAR 31.205-22. Raytheon argued that salary costs of employees who participate in lobbying activities are not “expressly unallowable” under FAR 31.001, because FAR 31.205-22 only generically refers to “costs associated with [lobbying activities]” and does not mention or identify in-house salary costs “by name.” The court disagreed, focusing on the definition of an “expressly unallowable cost” and concluding that “a particular item or type of cost . . . specifically named and identified as unallowable,” includes costs unambiguously falling within a generic description of a “type” of unallowable cost. According to the court, salaries of corporate personnel involved in lobbying are a prototypical lobbying expense, and, therefore, unambiguously “costs associated with” lobbying and “expressly unallowable.” The court also rejected various Raytheon arguments based on prior amendments to the lobbying cost principle and textual comparisons to other cost principles.
Because the Court concluded that salary costs for associated with lobbying are themselves “expressly unallowable,” it did not address Raytheon’s challenge to the Board’s alternative holding that even “directly associated costs” of an unallowable activity are “expressly unallowable,” subject to the penalties provided under FAR 42.709-1(a)(1).
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26

