1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |FEMA Allocates Certain Scarce PPE for Domestic Use and Restricts Exports

FEMA Allocates Certain Scarce PPE for Domestic Use and Restricts Exports

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.08.20

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under the Department of Homeland Security, has released a Temporary Final Rule that invokes the Defense Production Act (DPA) to allocate certain Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for domestic use and prohibit exportation of PPE from the U.S. without express FEMA approval. The mechanics of implementation remain somewhat unclear, but the rule provides for Customs and Border Protection to detain outbound shipments of PPE until FEMA determines whether to return the shipment for domestic use, issue a DPA-covered order against the PPE, or allow the export of all or part of the order in the interest of national defense. Covered PPE (“covered material”) includes:

  • N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators
  • Other Filtering Facepiece Respirators
  • Elastomeric, air-purifying respirators and appropriate particulate filters/cartridges
  • PPE surgical masks
  • PPE gloves or surgical gloves

FEMA commits to make determinations “quickly” and “within a reasonable time of being notified of an intended shipment.” The rule exempts covered material shipments made by or on behalf of U.S. manufacturers with continuous export agreements with customers in other countries since at least January 1, 2020, provided that at least 80% of the manufacturer’s domestic production of covered material was distributed in the U.S. in the preceding 12 months. Those violating the rule may be subject to a fine up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to one year, and/or an injunction. The rule will be effective when published in the Federal Register, currently scheduled for April 10.

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....

View All Insights