1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |No Post-Thanksgiving Break for Cyber – DoD and NIST Publish New Guidance

No Post-Thanksgiving Break for Cyber – DoD and NIST Publish New Guidance

Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.01.17

Both the Department of Defense and National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) have put pen to paper and provided new information for contractors looking to comply with DFARS 252.204-7012 and its accompanying cybersecurity requirements under NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-171.  Earlier this week, the DoD posted guidance explaining that contractors can still use system security plans (SSPs) under the original version of NIST SP 800-171 to “document implementation” under the DFARS Clause, despite that version not including SSPs as a security control requirement.  Separately, NIST published a draft of NIST SP 800-171A, Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information, providing guidance to both contractors and their customers regarding how to conduct assessments under NIST SP 800-171.  Importantly, the draft is open to comment through December 27, 2017, providing contractors with a unique opportunity to weigh in on how their customers may ultimately judge compliance with the DFARS Clause’s security requirements.


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