PODCAST: Energy Infrastructure under the Trump Administration — C&M's Trump: The First Year Series
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.27.17
In the latest podcast for Crowell & Moring’s “Trump: The First Year” series, Richard Lehfeldt, partner in the firm’s Energy Group, and Diana Jeschke, counsel in the group, sit down to discuss energy infrastructure issues under the Trump Administration. Richard previously worked as counsel for the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Diana was an attorney advisor to administrative law judges Carmen Cintron and David Coffman at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Discussed in this 16-minute podcast:
- An overview of energy infrastructure.
- Who makes decisions about energy infrastructure, where does the funding originate, and what factors go into those decisions.
- An overview of distributed generation and microgrids.
- Case studies: NYU and Princeton University, and what lessons to take from them.
Click below to listen or access from one of these links:
PodBean | SoundCloud | iTunes
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
