Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani presents the latest insights from our Government Contracts group, offering a comprehensive overview of recent significant decisions, regulatory changes, and essential updates for businesses contracting with federal and state governments. Our team compiled the most pertinent legal developments to keep you informed in the dynamic landscape of government contracts.
Tune in to The Essential GovCon Brief podcast for an in-depth discussion of the issues highlighted here.
Recent Cases:
Federal Court Enjoins Executive Order Targeting WilmerHale
Overview
On June 3, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a permanent injunction blocking enforcement of a 2025 executive order that had directed federal agencies to suspend contracts and access clearances associated with WilmerHale LLP, a law firm that also served as a government contractor.
The executive order had instructed agencies to terminate WilmerHale’s existing federal contracts, refrain from future awards, and suspend the firm’s security clearances based on concerns related to the firm’s prior legal advocacy. WilmerHale challenged the order, arguing it violated First Amendment rights, due process, and the separation of powers.
The court agreed, concluding that:
- The executive order impermissibly targeted the firm based on its protected speech and past legal representations, violating the First Amendment;
- WilmerHale personnel were stripped of clearances and facility access without individualized notice or process, implicating the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause;
- The order improperly imposed professional consequences outside the scope of executive authority, infringing upon powers reserved to the judiciary.
While the ruling is specific to WilmerHale, the decision has broader implications for contractors that engage in legal, advisory, or advocacy work within the federal space, particularly those with active security clearances or classified engagements.
Key Takeaways
The court’s ruling limits how far the executive branch can go in removing a contractor from government work based on the contractor’s past statements or legal representations.
- The decision emphasizes that contractors providing services to federal agencies, especially in sensitive or classified contexts, are still protected by constitutional principles, including due process and freedom of speech.
- When agency actions affect a contractor’s access to facilities, systems, or classified work, those actions must follow proper procedures and cannot be based solely on political disagreements or perceived affiliations.
- Contractors engaged in advisory, legal, or professional services roles may see this ruling as reinforcing the importance of fairness and predictability in how the federal government administers awards and access.
Citation: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-917 (D.D.C. 2025).
Latest Developments on DEI-Related Executive Orders
As previously reported, multiple lawsuits continue to challenge the 2025 executive orders issued by the Trump administration that target federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Litigation remains active across several jurisdictions, but a small number of courts have issued preliminary rulings that address whether these executive orders may be enforced while the legal challenges proceed.
This update summarizes the most significant developments to date, with particular focus on rulings that affect federal contractors and grantees subject to DEI-related compliance obligations. These early judicial decisions on preliminary injunctions represent the clearest insight so far into how courts are weighing compliance mandates against constitutional claims at this stage of the litigation.
San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump (N.D. Cal.)
On June 9, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement of Executive Order 14173 against the plaintiff, a federally funded healthcare nonprofit. The court found the DEI certification requirement unconstitutionally vague, echoing concerns raised in other jurisdictions. The injunction prohibits the federal government from conditioning grant eligibility on compliance with the certification mandate as applied to the foundation. Though the plaintiff is not a government contractor, the ruling may influence future enforcement limitations, particularly where certifications are a condition of award.
National Urban League v. Trump (D.D.C.)
In May 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a preliminary injunction sought by civil rights organizations challenging Executive Orders 14151, 14168, and 14173. The court held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success or irreparable harm to justify blocking enforcement. The orders therefore remain in effect while the case proceeds. The decision affirmed the government’s authority to require DEI-related certifications from contractors and grantees for now.
Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump (N.D. Ill.)
<u?chicago in=”” trades=”” trump=”” v.=”” women=””></u?chicago><u?chicago in=”” trades=”” trump=”” v.=”” women=””></u?chicago>
In April 2025, the Northern District of Illinois partially granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining the Department of Labor only from enforcing EO 14173’s DEI certification requirement. The court ruled the provision unconstitutionally vague because it failed to explain “what might make any given DEI program violate Federal antidiscrimination laws.” This is the only current ruling that directly restrains an agency from requiring the certification from contractors or grantees.
National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump (D. Md.)
Although a district court in Maryland initially granted a preliminary injunction against parts of Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, the Fourth Circuit stayed that injunction in March 2025. As a result, the orders remain enforceable during the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Certification Requirements Remain Largely in Effect: Except where specifically enjoined, such as at the Department of Labor, federal agencies may continue requiring contractors to certify that their internal policies and practices do not promote disapproved DEI concepts under the executive orders.
- Legal Uncertainty Persists Regarding “Illegal DEI”: Courts have not uniformly blocked the executive orders, and most are allowing them to remain in effect while litigation continues. This has led to uncertainty about what constitutes “illegal DEI” activities, leaving contractors to navigate ambiguous compliance expectations.
- Agency-Specific Variability Matters: Because some injunctions apply only to particular agencies or plaintiffs, contractors should track the specific DEI-related language and certification requirements included in solicitations and award documents from each agency they work with.
Court of Federal Claims Addresses Improper Competitive Range Determination
Overview
A recent ruling from the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) in Gemini Tech Services, LLC v. United States highlights the legal standards agencies must meet when making competitive range decisions, providing that exclusion from consideration must be justified by more than vague or unsupported critiques.
Gemini Tech challenged its exclusion from the competitive range in a task order competition, arguing that the agency’s rationale lacked a reasonable foundation and failed to accurately reflect the contents of its proposal. The court agreed, finding that the Army’s decision was not supported by the record and appeared to rely on misreadings or omissions rather than a fair and considered evaluation.
The ruling is a reminder that while agencies have discretion in forming a competitive range, that discretion is not unlimited. Exclusions must be based on clear, documented reasons that align with the solicitation and are grounded in the proposal itself—not on generalized concerns or evaluator misunderstandings.
Key Takeaways
- Being excluded from the competitive range effectively ends an offeror’s chance at award. A flawed exclusion cuts off further discussions and prevents the offeror from correcting perceived weaknesses.
- This decision affirms that offerors can successfully challenge unjustified exclusions, especially where the evaluation record shows disconnects between the proposal and the agency’s rationale.
- Agencies must demonstrate a rational basis for excluding a proposal. Contractors that believe their proposals were unfairly dismissed may have recourse through protest.
Citation: Gemini Tech Services, LLC v. United States, No. 23-1623C (Fed. Cl. 2025).
GRSM Government Contracts Practice Group
GRSM’s Government Contracts team has considerable experience defending and enforcing the rights of our contractor clients in disputes against government entities and private businesses. In addition to litigating claims in state and federal courts, we routinely handle matters before administrative tribunals, such as the Government Accountability Office, the Small Business Administration, and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.
Our team of attorneys is located throughout the United States, which allows the firm to represent contractors, regardless of size, and in a wide variety of industries, including defense, information technology, construction, and aerospace, among others.
Please contact Patrick Burns, Meredith Thielbahr, or Laegan Meyers for further information or with any questions.