The "Super Committee" Failed – What Now?
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.22.11
The budget "Super Committee" failed to reach any agreement on federal deficit reduction yesterday, missing its deadline and leaving Congress with no clear alternative to the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts slated to take effect January 2, 2013. Members of Congress and the President, however, appear to be setting the stage for continuation of the debate into 2012, leaving federal agencies and contractors with little certainty about how their programs will be affected.
Under the Budget Control Act of 2011 ("BCA"), $1.2 trillion of automatic budget cuts will be implemented through a process of "sequestration" if Congress does not act. The automatic reductions will take the form of equal cuts (in dollar terms) in defense and nondefense spending accounts, starting in fiscal year 2013. Those cuts will be achieved by lowering the caps on discretionary budget authority specified in the BCA and by automatically cancelling budgetary resources for some programs and activities financed by mandatory spending. For a detailed analysis of the sequestration process, click the link to Crowell & Moring's September 2011 webinar below.
Congress still has time to act. Before the automatic spending cuts go into effect, Congress still may reach an agreement on specific budget cuts or may even amend the BCA. Some members of Congress already have suggested increasing the number of programs exempt from sequestration, particularly to reduce the impact of cuts at the Department of Defense. President Obama, however, has indicated that he will veto any such attempt by Congress to rewrite the BCA. It also appears unlikely that either the President or Congress will abandon the requirement for $1.2 trillion in total deficit reduction.
Continuing uncertainty about these budget cuts will mean substantial challenges for planning and procurement by federal agencies in FY 2012. Crowell will continue to monitor the budget process and provide updates as events merit.
Crowell & Moring Webinar: The Deficit Reduction "Super Committee"-- What it Means for Government Contractors and Healthcare Plans and Providers [PDF].
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].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
