Happy Holidays From The Far Council -- Proposed Restrictions On Allowable Airfare
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.21.07
In a proposed change to FAR 31.205-46(b) (72 Fed. Reg. 72325 (Dec. 20, 2007)), the FAR Council is seeking public comments on a proposal to change the standard for allowable airfare from "the lowest customary standard, coach, or equivalent airfare offered during normal business hours" to nothing "in excess of the lowest priced coach class, or equivalent, airfare available to the contractor during normal business hours." While it appears from the comments in the proposed regulation and what is known about the background of this proposal that the principal purpose of the proposal is to measure the unallowable cost attributable to premium airfares by disallowing the excess over the lowest available discounted airfare available, the proposal obviously has the potential for creating serious difficulties for all contractors and all travel where the lowest price "available to the contractor" is determined in an ephemeral internet market that changes literally from minute to minute and depends on a variety of factors including the fliers' willingness to accept advance purchase and minimum stay requirements, restrictions on changes and refundability, and choice of carrier.
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
