1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Industry & DoD Push for Delay in Implementing the Section 889(a)(1)(B) Prohibition

Industry & DoD Push for Delay in Implementing the Section 889(a)(1)(B) Prohibition

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.18.20

Section 889(a)(1)(B) of the FY 2019 NDAA, scheduled to become effective on August 13, 2020, bars the Government from entering into a contract, or extending or renewing a contract, with any entity that uses certain covered telecommunications equipment or services. The prohibition against “use” of covered equipment applies broadly to a contractor’s “use” anywhere within the company (including affiliates), and is not limited to its performance of government contracts. Industry has expressed substantial concerns over the reach of this prohibition and over whether compliance is even possible. On June 10, 2020, as the deadline for implementation looms and FAR Case 19-009 remains pending, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord testified before the House Armed Services Committee, seeking Congress to delay Section 889(a)(1)(B)’s effective date.

Under Secretary Lord expressed concerns with the DoD’s ability to implement the restrictions by the rapidly approaching deadline, and to ensure complete compliance within two years. Given the complexity of the defense supply chain, she suggested that an additional year is needed to prevent the statutory prohibition from creating any potential unintended consequences to the defense industrial base. Industry would also like to see a delay in implementation, as well as a scaling back of the prohibition’s reach.

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