1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Federal Government and States Consider Banning U.S. Government Contracts with Companies Doing Business in Russia

Federal Government and States Consider Banning U.S. Government Contracts with Companies Doing Business in Russia

Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.24.22

Thus far, the Russia-Ukraine war’s primary impacts on Government Contractors have largely been in the export control and sanctions arenas.  However, that could change dramatically under new federal and state proposals.  

On the federal side, Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Chairwoman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, introduced the Federal Contracting for Peace and Security Act.  As drafted, the legislation would prohibit the United States from doing business with companies currently operating in Russia.  Specifically, the bill would prohibit awards, extensions and renewals of (i) prime contracts with any company if that company (or any parent, subsidiary, successor entity, or beneficial owner of such company) has done business in Russia during the “covered period of aggression” against Ukraine, and (ii) prime contracts that include subcontracts at any tier with such companies.  The bill would also require termination of existing covered contracts.  Notably, the bill defines the “covered period of aggression” as beginning on February 21, 2022.  Thus, even companies that have already ceased operations in Russia (but that did so after February 21) would be swept in by the bill.

The bill includes exceptions for (i) procurements that benefit Ukraine, either directly or through the efforts of regional allies, and (ii) procurements for humanitarian purposes to meet basic human needs.  Also, the head of an executive agency would be able to waive the bill’s requirements where termination of an existing contract or prohibition of a new contract would not be in the national interest of the United States; however, that waiver authority could not be delegated, and would require advance written notice to Congress and the President.

On the state side, Governors in at least 16 states (including, e.g., California, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Washington) are calling for the review and termination of state contracts with Russian entities, and in some instances are proposing to terminate state contracts with companies that do business in Russia.  At least 18 states have taken executive action to divest or are considering divestment bills.  State legislatures also are considering similar actions aimed at prohibiting state agencies from transacting with Russian entities or companies that do business with Russian entities (e.g., New York, California).  

These federal and state proposals are very much in flux, and it remains to be seen whether and to what extent they may ultimately be finalized.  However, given their potential significance, state and federal Government Contractors should continue to closely monitor these developments.

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].”...