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 | 3 min read | 01.13.26
Colorado Judge Quashes DOJ Gender-Related Care Subpoena
On January 5, 2026, District of Colorado Magistrate Judge Cyrus Chung issued a recommendation that the district court grant a motion to quash a Department of Justice (DOJ) administrative subpoena that sought records about the provision of gender-related care by Children’s Hospital Colorado (Children’s) in In re: Department of Justice Administrative Subpoena No. 25-1431-030, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, No. 1:25-mc-00063. The court concluded that the DOJ had failed to carry its “light” burden, noting that no other courts that had considered the more than 20 similar subpoenas issued by DOJ had ruled in the DOJ’s favor.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 01.13.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 01.13.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 01.07.26



