Insights

On December 8, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in State of New York v. Trump held unlawful and vacated the U.S. Department of the Interior’s “Wind Order” implementing President Trump’s January 20, 2025, “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf From Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects,” 90 Fed. Reg. 8363 (Wind Memo, discussed further in a prior alert). This lawsuit, brought by a coalition of states with Alliance for Clean Energy New York intervening on their behalf, challenges Interior’s implementation, through the Wind Order, of the Wind Memo’s direction to pause processing permits and other approvals necessary to onshore and offshore wind energy development. Notably, the lawsuit does not challenge the other element of the Wind Memo, which withdrew unleased offshore areas from future leasing under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). (Note, even though the Wind Order indicates its effect is temporary, the Wind Memo instructs relevant agencies not to advance wind development projects until a “comprehensive assessment” is completed, and the district court’s order confirms that the affected agencies had no plans to restart permitting activities until that assessment was complete.)

On December 5, 2025, the Small Business Administration (SBA) sent letters to 4,300 current and recent participants in the 8(a) Business Development Program requiring production by January 5, 2026, of financial records, contracting and subcontracting agreements, and employee records.  Below we discuss the genesis of the U.S. Government’s focus on fraud in small business programs, the new SBA request for documents, the coming Treasury audit of preference-based contracts, and more.

This news bulletin is provided by the International Trade Group of Crowell & Moring. If you have questions or need assistance on trade law matters, please contact Anand Sithian or Simeon Yerokun or any member of the International Trade Group.

California continues its blistering pace in enacting artificial intelligence regulations. In 2024 alone, California enacted 18 AI-related bills seeking to regulate AI tools and increase transparency around AI data disclosure.

On November 26, 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published its Proposed Rule for the Medicare Program; Contract Year 2027 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage Program, Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Program, and Medicare Cost Plan Program (the “CY 2027 NPRM” or “proposed rule”) for public comment. In addition to outlining prospective policy and technical changes to Medicare Advantage (Part C), the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit (Part D), and Medicare Cost Plan regulations, the proposals showcase the government’s plans to make comprehensive updates in response to statutory changes—notably the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA)—as well as feedback from interested parties, and current federal deregulatory priorities.

As we have reported previously, California has enacted a pair of climate-related reporting laws that apply to large entities doing business in California (SB 253 and SB 261, as modified by SB 219). This alert provides an update on only the most recent events; please see previous alerts for a broader overview of the laws’ requirements.

Rule 16.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, titled “Multidistrict Litigation,” takes effect today, December 1, 2025. The adoption of this rule provides a long-awaited framework specific to district courts’ management of MDL proceedings. However, many critics of the new rule are concerned that it does not impose mandatory obligations on MDL courts, and thus lacks the teeth required to establish meaningful change.

On Friday, November 21, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) noticed its appeal of the Northern District of Texas’ decision in Humana Inc. et al. v. Becerra et al.

Utah Attorney General Derek Brown (R) and North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson (D) have announced a nationwide bipartisan “AI Task Force,” in partnership with major AI developers (including OpenAI and Microsoft) and the Attorney General Alliance (AGA), a bipartisan nonprofit that serves as a forum for attorneys general around the United States to discuss and collaborate on policy and enforcement initiatives.

President Trump is preparing to sign an Executive Order that would seek to forestall state regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) by threatening federal lawsuits and the withholding of some federal funds. The draft, unsigned six-page Executive Order, “Eliminating State Law Obstruction of National AI Policy” (EO), the text of which has been circulating publicly since November 19, would declare it the policy of the Administration “to sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome, uniform national policy framework for AI.”

On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.

The facts before the Third Circuit in the recently decided case of Patel v. United States illustrate how parties can put themselves in a bind if they make factual admissions when resolving a criminal case involving fraud on the government while not simultaneously resolving the government’s civil claims under the False Claims Act (FCA) for the same underlying conduct.

On November 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a sweeping series of enforcement actions, including four guilty pleas and more than $15 million in civil forfeitures against the  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) for remote information technology (IT) worker schemes. These actions underscore the federal government’s escalating focus on the exposure of U.S. companies to North Korean IT worker infiltration, following a series of U.S. Government action against the DPRK.

Microplastics pollution has emerged as a significant issue as the public learns more about the presence of microplastics in the environment and how they may enter the human body.

On November 12, 2025, the Tax Court issued a reviewed opinion in Patel v. Commissioner holding in favor of the IRS that the taxpayers’ transaction lacked economic substance, and therefore the taxpayers were liable for penalties under the codified economic substance doctrine at the increased penalty rate, as well as accuracy-related penalties. The Court previously held in a separate opinion that the taxpayers’ purported captive transactions did not constitute insurance because they failed to distribute risk, and in the alternative, that the micro-captives did not act as an insurer commonly would. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs laid out their enforcement priorities during the 2025 ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference, at which Crowell & Moring attorneys spoke on and attended various panels.

On November 7, 2025, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced the Department of War’s (“DoW”) Acquisition Transformation Strategy (the “Strategy”) during a speech to military leaders and industry at the National War College on Fort McNair.  The Strategy sets out five pillars for acquisition reform, each containing near-and long-term actions to “ensure delivery of capabilities to the American warfighter” at a more rapid pace.  

In a stunning revelation following last month’s jewel heist at the Louvre Museum in Paris, France, a 2014 audit resurfaced, spreading rumors that the password to the museum’s video surveillance system was still “Louvre.”

On November 10, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released proposed regulations that, if adopted, would substantially alter the reporting obligations of companies that manufacture or import products containing per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The proposed regulations would significantly reduce reporting burdens by exempting numerous products that currently trigger reporting requirements under EPA’s PFAS reporting regulations.  The proposed regulations would also delay the current deadline for reporting.

Election Day 2025 included two high-profile elections that determined who will serve as the next state attorney general for the Commonwealth of Virginia and for the State of New Jersey. Former Virginia Delegate Jay Jones, a Democrat, was elected the next Virginia Attorney General and in New Jersey, Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat, was elected New Jersey’s next governor. Governor-Elect Sherrill is expected to appoint a Democrat as the next New Jersey Attorney General.