1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |It's Not Easy Being Green: DoD Tightens up Domestic Preference Restrictions on Photovoltaic Devices

It's Not Easy Being Green: DoD Tightens up Domestic Preference Restrictions on Photovoltaic Devices

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.29.15

On May 26, 2015, DoD issued a proposed rule to implement further restrictions on the acquisition of domestic photovoltaic (PV) devices mandated by the FY 2015 National Defense Authorization Act. In addition to broadening the scope of application (i.e., applying the restriction when the PV device is installed on DoD property or a facility owned by DoD or if the device is reserved for the exclusive use of DoD for its full economic life cycle), DoD has narrowed the applicable exceptions (e.g., the component prong of the country of origin test is no longer waived for commercially available, off-the-shelf items and acquisition of qualifying country PV devices requires an individual public interest determination), which will make it even harder for suppliers to comply.

Contacts

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].”...