Partial Government Shutdown Does Not Toll Filing Deadlines at GAO, Court, or Boards
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.26.18
Contractors with upcoming protest or litigation filing deadlines take note – the partial government shutdown will not impact filing deadlines at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S. Federal Courts, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) or Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA), all of which remain open. GAO has indicated that it will operate as normal during the shutdown and will not toll any deadlines for private parties, but will grant extensions for those agencies impacted by a lapse in appropriations. The U.S. Federal Courts, including the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, are not currently impacted by the shutdown but may have limited resources if the shutdown goes beyond January 11, 2019. Agency lawyers impacted by the shutdown may seek relief from deadlines on a case by case basis. The ASBCA and CBCA remain open and are accepting filings during the shutdown.
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.
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
