In a unanimous Judgment, the SCOTUS resolved long simmering legal uncertainty by deciding that federal prosecutors may hold federal contractors and federal grant recipients criminally liable for fraudulently promising compliance in contract bid proposals even where the fraud caused no economic harm to the federal contract or grant agency. 

1. No one knows when the Federal Acquisition Counsel will publish the coming two new certifications it is planning to require federal government contractors to make when submitting federal contract bids. Pending litigation in one court is momentarily delaying their implementation, as noted below. 
2. Quick Background: These certification requirements sprang up in President Trump’s January 20, 2025, Executive Order 14151   (Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing) and January 21, 2025, Executive Order 14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity). See my March 24, 2025, Previous blog HERE describing the two pre-contract certifications and their status at that time. 
   
   That blog reported a major Trump (interim) injunction a potentially quizzical 3-Judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (Richmond) issued in his favor. The injunction greenlighted President Trump’s use of the two certifications pending a later full review of the competing claims of the parties on the merits. Significantly, however, the three Judges found, in support of their interim Order, that the President’s legal arguments enjoyed a high likelihood to prevail on the merits upon the later full review of the case. And, of course, it would be these same three Judges who would make that final decision on the merits. 
   
   So, things were looking up for the President to require federal contractors to certify that they had no unlawfully discriminatory policies or practices when they bid federal contracts.   
3. Since then, however, Judge Matthew Kennelly of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois also weighed in on the certifications, among other things, in an unrelated lawsuit the Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT) brought to stop both of President Trump’s above-referenced Executive Orders. 

On March 27, 2025, Judge Kennelly issued a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting USDOL from enforcing certain provisions of both Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, including the two federal contract bid certifications. The case is Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT) v. Trump, et al No. 1:2025-cv-02005 (N.D. Ill. 2025). 

OutSolve has invited John C. Fox, Esq. as a guest blogger providing legal insights on EEO and compliance issues. The views expressed in his posts are his and do not reflect the viewpoint of OutSolve or its employees. 

OutSolve has invited John C. Fox, Esq. as a guest blogger providing legal insights on EEO and compliance issues. The views expressed in his posts are his and do not reflect the viewpoint of OutSolve or its employees. 

OutSolve has invited John C. Fox, Esq. as a guest blogger providing legal insights on EEO and compliance issues. The views expressed in his posts are his and do not reflect the viewpoint of OutSolve or its employees.

In John Fox's last blog, he explored the legal risks under the False Claims Act (FCA) when certifying compliance on federal contracts and grants, highlighting the need for proactive evaluation and internal review. In this follow-up blog, Fox explains how two major federal agencies, the DoD and GSA, are already implementing binding contract changes in response to the new anti-DEI Executive Orders. While formal FAR Council rules are still pending, these Class Deviations make one thing clear: change is happening now and contractors must be ready.

FEDERAL CONTRACT/GRANT CLAUSES UPDATE: The Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council has yet to issue Proposed, let alone Final, Rules to implement throughout the federal government the two anti-DEI certifications President Trump has ordered up. The Council also has NOT forecast a publication date. (They are a bit busy in Washington D.C. at this time.) 

OutSolve has invited John C. Fox, Esq. as a guest blogger providing legal insights on EEO and compliance issues. The views expressed in his posts are his and do not reflect the viewpoint of OutSolve or its employees.

OutSolve has invited John C. Fox, Esq. as a guest blogger providing legal insights on EEO and compliance issues. The views expressed in his posts are his and do not reflect the viewpoint of OutSolve or its employees.

OutSolve has invited John C. Fox, Esq. as a guest blogger providing legal insights on EEO and compliance issues. The views expressed in his posts are his and do not reflect the viewpoint of OutSolve or its employees.

OutSolve has invited John C. Fox, Esq. as a guest blogger providing legal insights on EEO and compliance issues. The views expressed in his posts are his and do not reflect the viewpoint of OutSolve or its employees.

OutSolve has invited John C. Fox, Esq. as a guest blogger providing legal insights on EEO and compliance issues. The views expressed in his posts are his and do not reflect the viewpoint of OutSolve or its employees.