Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Littler Issues Commentary: Dutch Pay Transparency Takes a Step Forward - Three Takeaways From the Updated Draft Implementation Bill
SAN FRANCISCO, California, June 3 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 2, 2026, by counsel Tanya van Nieuwstadt and associate Wouter Heere:* * *
Dutch Pay Transparency Takes a Step Forward: Three Takeaways from the Updated Draft Implementation Bill
On May 21, 2026, an updated draft bill to implement the EU Pay Transparency Directive ("Draft Bill") was submitted to the House of Representatives. The updated text includes new clarifications following the Council of State's advice dated April 1, 2026 - and three specific points deserve to be highlighted.
1. No changes ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, June 3 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 2, 2026, by counsel Tanya van Nieuwstadt and associate Wouter Heere: * * * Dutch Pay Transparency Takes a Step Forward: Three Takeaways from the Updated Draft Implementation Bill On May 21, 2026, an updated draft bill to implement the EU Pay Transparency Directive ("Draft Bill") was submitted to the House of Representatives. The updated text includes new clarifications following the Council of State's advice dated April 1, 2026 - and three specific points deserve to be highlighted. 1. No changesto previously proposed reporting deadlines and thresholds
The Draft Bill makes no changes to the previously proposed extension for the initial reporting deadline for larger employers, despite advice from the Council of State. The Council of State had advised the government to align the first reporting deadline to the dates in the Directive; however, the first reporting deadline for employers with 150 or more / employees remains June 7, 2028.
In doing so, the government prioritizes a workable implementation over a timely one as it expects the first report (in 2028) to require more preparation for employers than later reporting cycles.
2. Position on non-binary individuals
The Council of State noted that the original language of the Draft Bill was insufficiently clear on how pay of non-binary individuals is involved in the reporting obligation that focuses on pay gaps among women and men.
The Draft Bill now reiterates that employers do not have to report on the pay differences of non-binary individuals. This is because the Directive is aimed at promoting equal pay for women and men. Non-binary individuals do, however, need to be included in the count to determine the size of the organization. This calculation is relevant to determine, among other things, whether an employer is obliged to submit a mandatory report. Non-binary individuals should also be included in the count to determine the proportion of women and men within a certain "equal work" category.
The Bill clarifies that it will be left to the individual employer to determine employees identifying as non-binary for the purpose of the Bill. As noted, the only thing the government has indicated is that employees who identify as non-binary and have made this known to their employer, and who are therefore recorded as such in the records, are in principle excluded from the reporting on pay gaps between men and women. The employer may record gender in the records based on identity documents that are usually required to be provided, such as a passport. This is necessary to comply with the proposed transparency obligations. Individuals who have registered as non-binary are free to indicate to the employer whether they wish to be included as male or female for the purposes of the pay reporting. The employer may not make this mandatory, however. This opens the door for some administrative work on the part of the employer to assess this on a case-by-case basis.
3. New guidance on GDPR tensions
The Council of State raised General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) privacy concerns on situations where responding to the right to request information may result in providing average pay information that may be traceable to individuals, especially in small comparison groups.
As a base measure, the Directive allows member states to restrict access to certain pay information where the information could reveal the pay of individuals as personal information. The Directive suggests one solution, for example, would be disclosing the pay information to worker representatives instead of directly to the employees.
In a surprising move, the government decided not to implement the above solution in the Draft Bill. The government is taking the position that the Draft Bill's existing approach to simply provide the employee with the mandatory pay information is GDPR-compliant and that an indirect disclosure weakens the employee's information position. This would result in employees not being able to effectively exercise the right to equal pay.
Consequently, the government gives more weight to pay transparency and the right to equal pay over GDPR concerns. The government does note, however, that any data traceable to an individual may only be used to exercise the right to equal pay.
The government takes a rather hardline stance compared to other EU governments, as it plainly accepts that pay information may be traceable to individuals to ensure the effective exercise of pay transparency rights. This hardline stance is also remarkable considering the Dutch Authority of Personal Data ("AP") offered severe criticism with regards to the previous version of the Draft Bill. So far, the AP has not yet responded to the updated version of the Draft Bill, but it is unlikely the AP will consider the Draft Bill GDPR-compliant, despite the government's insistence that it is. While awaiting the response of the AP, it seems employers may need to be concerned about dueling compliance obligations.
The Bill is now to be debated in substance by the House of Representatives and, after that, the Senate. Additional changes can be made following debate.
At this time, we recommend that employers continue to prepare to comply with the baseline requirements of the Directive. We do not recommend that employers make any significant changes to align with the Draft Bill until more clarification is available.
* * *
Authors
Tanya van Nieuwstadt
Counsel
Amsterdam
* * *
Wouter Heere
Associate
Amsterdam
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/dutch-pay-transparency-takes-step-forward-three-takeaways-updated-draft
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
IAM Ranks Crowell & Moring in Patent 1000 2026
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- Crowell and Moring, a law firm, issued the following news on June 2, 2026:* * *
IAM Ranks Crowell & Moring in Patent 1000 2026
Chicago: Intellectual Asset Management recognized Crowell & Moring in its IAM Patent 1000 - The World's Leading Patent Practitioners guide, awarding a gold band ranking for patent litigation and transactions in Belgium, a silver band ranking for patent litigation and recommended for patent prosecution in Illinois, and a bronze band ranking for patent prosecution in the United Kingdom: England and Wales. The firm was also recommended nationally ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 3 -- Crowell and Moring, a law firm, issued the following news on June 2, 2026: * * * IAM Ranks Crowell & Moring in Patent 1000 2026 Chicago: Intellectual Asset Management recognized Crowell & Moring in its IAM Patent 1000 - The World's Leading Patent Practitioners guide, awarding a gold band ranking for patent litigation and transactions in Belgium, a silver band ranking for patent litigation and recommended for patent prosecution in Illinois, and a bronze band ranking for patent prosecution in the United Kingdom: England and Wales. The firm was also recommended nationallyin the United States for trade secrets litigation.
Crowell's offices have earned recognition across key practice areas. IAM notes that "Crowell & Moring's Brussels patent team is widely recognized for shaping the Belgian patent landscape through creative, high-impact disputes." Globally, "clients around the world continue to turn to the talented team in Crowell's London office to handle their most significant transactions, intellectual property, disputes, and regulatory matters." The Chicago team was similarly acknowledged for aligning "technical protection with commercial objectives and, when disputes arise, defending those rights through prepared and carefully calibrated advocacy."
Individual lawyers from the firm's Brussels, Chicago, London, and Orange County offices were recommended in the guide, including:
Belgium
* Jan-Diederik Lindemans (Gold - Belgium, Litigation and Transactions)
* Kristof Roox (Gold - Belgium, Litigation and Transactions)
* Jurgen Figys (Silver - Belgium, Litigation and Transactions)
* Edward Taelman (Bronze - Belgium, Litigation and Transactions)
* Christopher Dumont (Next Generation - Belgium)
United Kingdom: England and Wales
* Justin Hill (Gold - United Kingdom: England and Wales, Prosecution)
* Marie Jansson Heeks (Bronze - United Kingdom: England and Wales, Prosecution)
* James Prankerd Smith (Recommended - United Kingdom: England and Wales)
United States
* Jon Gurka (Bronze - United States: California, Litigation)
* Laura A. Lydigsen (Bronze - United States: Illinois, Litigation)
* Mark H. Remus (Bronze - United States: Illinois, Litigation)
* Joseph F. Hetz (Recommended - United States: Illinois, Prosecution)
IAM Patent 1000 analyzed interview findings alongside written submissions and client feedback to identify the firms and practitioners regarded as leaders in patent-related legal services. To see the firm's full rankings, please visit here (https://www.iam-media.com/rankings/patent-1000/profile/firm/crowell-moring-llp).
* * *
About Crowell & Moring LLP
Crowell & Moring is an international law firm with operations in the United States, Europe, and MENA. Drawing on significant government, business, industry, and legal experience, the firm helps clients capitalize on opportunities and provides creative solutions to complex regulatory and policy, litigation, transactional, and intellectual property issues. The firm is consistently recognized for its commitment to pro bono service, as well as its comprehensive programs and initiatives to advance the professional and personal development of all members of the Crowell community.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/firm-news/iam-ranks-crowell-and-moring-in-patent-1000-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Holland & Hart's Patent Team Recognized in 2026 IAM Patent 1000
DENVER, Colorado, June 3 -- Holland and Hart, a law firm, issued the following news:* * *
Holland & Hart's Patent Team Recognized in 2026 IAM Patent 1000
Holland & Hart is proud to announce that its IP practice has been recognized as a patent law leader in the 2026 edition of Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Patent 1000: The World's Leading Patent Professionals. The firm received national recognition for patent prosecution and earned rankings in Colorado and Utah for patent litigation and prosecution. Six of the firm's patent partners were also individually recognized.
The firm received ... Show Full Article DENVER, Colorado, June 3 -- Holland and Hart, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Holland & Hart's Patent Team Recognized in 2026 IAM Patent 1000 Holland & Hart is proud to announce that its IP practice has been recognized as a patent law leader in the 2026 edition of Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Patent 1000: The World's Leading Patent Professionals. The firm received national recognition for patent prosecution and earned rankings in Colorado and Utah for patent litigation and prosecution. Six of the firm's patent partners were also individually recognized. The firm receivedrecognition in the following practice areas:
United States: National: Prosecution - Recommended
Colorado: Prosecution - Highly Recommended
Colorado: Litigation - Gold
Utah: Firms - Silver
IAM recognized Holland & Hart's Colorado practice for delivering "strategic patent counsel across the full lifecycle, from portfolio development and prosecution to opinion work," noting the firm "attracts national and global innovators." Of the Utah practice, IAM noted the firm has "built a strong reputation among innovative companies worldwide, offering a patent practice defined by broad technical fluency and commercially grounded advice."
The following Holland & Hart partners were individually recognized:
Colorado:
* Tim Getzoff: Litigation - Gold
* Elizabeth Manno: Litigation - Bronze
Utah:
* Phil Harris: Prosecution - Highly Recommended
* Ian Clouse: Prosecution - Recommended
* Loren Hulse: Prosecution - Recommended
* J. Scott Karren: Prosecution - Recommended
IAM called Tim Getzoff "the go-to for high-stakes disputes," Elizabeth Manno a "go-to adviser on complex technology disputes," and Phil Harris "a pre-eminent name in the IP arena." Scott Karren was praised for providing "strategic counsel to major technology companies," Ian Clouse for navigating "the practical interplay between patents and business realities," and Loren Hulse for delivering "sophisticated portfolio guidance spanning both patents and trademarks."
The IAM Patent 1000 identifies top patent professionals and firms in key jurisdictions around the globe through extensive research, incorporating feedback from peers and clients to evaluate depth of experience, market presence, and caliber of work.
Holland & Hart's Patent team focuses on next-generation technologies, including wireless communications, memory technology, electronics, wearable health devices, encryption and security, AI and cloud computing, software, and standard essential patents, among other areas.
Click here (https://www.iam-media.com/rankings/patent-1000/country/united-states-national) to view all firm and individual rankings.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hollandhart.com/holland-harts-patent-team-recognized-in-2026-iam-patent-1000
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Haynes Boone Energy Price Deck Survey Shows Banks Expect Oil Shock to Ease Despite Middle East Volatility
DALLAS, Texas, June 3 (TNSrep) -- Haynes and Boone, a law firm, issued the following news release:* * *
Haynes Boone Energy Price Deck Survey Shows Banks Expect Oil Shock to Ease Despite Middle East Volatility
A new survey from Haynes Boone found that energy lenders significantly increased their near-term oil price forecasts following recent geopolitical instability in the Middle East, while largely maintaining long-term price expectations that suggest confidence in an eventual market normalization.
Haynes Boone's Spring 2026 Energy Bank Price Deck Survey collected price deck data from 31 ... Show Full Article DALLAS, Texas, June 3 (TNSrep) -- Haynes and Boone, a law firm, issued the following news release: * * * Haynes Boone Energy Price Deck Survey Shows Banks Expect Oil Shock to Ease Despite Middle East Volatility A new survey from Haynes Boone found that energy lenders significantly increased their near-term oil price forecasts following recent geopolitical instability in the Middle East, while largely maintaining long-term price expectations that suggest confidence in an eventual market normalization. Haynes Boone's Spring 2026 Energy Bank Price Deck Survey collected price deck data from 31banks actively involved in reserve-based lending and energy finance. The survey, now in its 14th iteration, is one of the leading indicators of lender sentiment and borrowing base expectations across the oil and gas industry.
The Spring 2026 survey revealed that banks are generally forecasting oil prices to retreat from recent highs over the next two years, despite volatility tied to the conflict between the U.S. and Iran and the temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Survey participants increased their average 2026 oil price forecast to $65.64 per barrel, up from $55.44 in the Fall 2025 survey, while the 2027 forecast rose to $60.44 from $55.56.
Despite those near-term increases, banks' longer-term outlooks remained remarkably consistent with prior surveys. From 2028 through 2035, surveyed lenders projected oil prices largely within the $57-$59 per barrel range, signaling expectations that current geopolitical disruptions will ultimately prove temporary.
"The survey shows lenders reacting to current geopolitical realities while still maintaining long-term discipline in their underwriting assumptions," said Ellen Conley, co-chair of Haynes Boone's Energy Finance Practice Group. "Banks clearly recognize the impact recent events have had on commodity markets, but the data also suggests confidence that prices will stabilize over time as markets and supply channels adjust."
The survey also revealed notable divergence among banks regarding the timing and pace of oil price stabilization. While some lenders projected 2026 and 2027 oil prices in the $70-$89 range, others forecast prices closer to $55-$60, reflecting ongoing uncertainty surrounding geopolitical developments and future supply conditions.
In contrast to oil, surveyed banks maintained relatively stable natural gas price expectations compared to prior surveys. The average 2026 natural gas forecast was $3.16/MMBTU, only modestly lower than the Fall 2025 survey average of $3.43/MMBTU. Long-term natural gas forecasts from 2027 through 2035 remained similarly consistent.
"The steadiness in natural gas projections highlights the relative resilience of the U.S. gas market, even amid broader geopolitical instability," said Laura Martone, co-chair of Haynes Boone's Energy Practice Group. "As the United States continues to strengthen its position as a major LNG exporter, lenders appear to view domestic natural gas fundamentals as comparatively insulated from the volatility affecting global oil markets."
The Spring 2026 survey included responses from 31 banks. Haynes Boone has conducted the Energy Bank Price Deck Survey biannually since 2019.
Explore the full Spring 2026 Energy Bank Price Deck Survey and historical charts here (https://www.haynesboone.com/experience/practices-and-industries/energy-power-and-natural-resources/energy-roundup).
* * *
About the Energy Bank Price Deck Survey
Launched in 2019, the Haynes Boone Energy Bank Price Deck Survey is released every spring and fall, offering a transparent look into how commercial banks view oil and gas market trends. It is one of the most cited data sources in the upstream lending space.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.haynesboone.com/news/press-releases/energy-price-deck-survey-shows-banks-expect-oil-shock-to-ease-despite-middle-east-volatility
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: EPA Proposes to Loosen NSR "Begin Actual Construction" Limits - What It Could Mean for Data Centers and Other Capital Projects
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 3 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on June 2, 2026:* * *
EPA Proposes to Loosen NSR "Begin Actual Construction" Limits: What It Could Mean for Data Centers and Other Capital Projects
A new proposal from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would allow construction projects to conduct more site work before the New Source Review (NSR) permitting process, a change that could speed up large construction projects, especially data centers. EPA rolled out a proposed rule on May 11 that would revise the NSR permitting regulations for new construction ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, June 3 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on June 2, 2026: * * * EPA Proposes to Loosen NSR "Begin Actual Construction" Limits: What It Could Mean for Data Centers and Other Capital Projects A new proposal from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would allow construction projects to conduct more site work before the New Source Review (NSR) permitting process, a change that could speed up large construction projects, especially data centers. EPA rolled out a proposed rule on May 11 that would revise the NSR permitting regulations for new constructionunder the Clean Air Act to narrow what counts as prohibited pre-permit construction activity. Here's everything you need to know about the proposal and four steps to consider now.
In a Nutshell
In practical terms, the EPA is proposing to allow more site activity and construction of non-emitting infrastructure before an owner or operator obtains an NSR permit. However, the proposal would still require a permit before physical construction begins on equipment or components that emit or have the potential to emit regulated NSR pollutants. If finalized, the proposal could materially affect how developers plan large projects, which could grease the wheels of fast-moving data center developments, semiconductor facilities, energy infrastructure, and other industrial builds that often face friction between construction schedules and permitting timelines.
What the EPA Proposed
The EPA said the current NSR definitions of "begin actual construction" and related terms have been interpreted to bar certain permanent on-site work before a permit is issued. Types of work that have fallen into that category include: installation of supports and foundations, laying underground pipework, and construction of permanent storage structures. The EPA also explained that the existing approach has created "uncertainties, delays, and regulatory burdens" and does not reflect what the agency now views as the best reading of the Clean Air Act.
To solve these issues, the EPA proposed to revise the definition of "begin actual construction" to mean, in general, the "initiation of physical on-site construction of pollutant-emitting activities on a stationary source."
The new definition would exclude several activities, allowing them to begin prior to the permitting process including:
* engineering and design planning,
* geotechnical investigation,
* clearing vegetation,
* grading, surveying, soil compacting and stabilization,
* excavation,
* ordering equipment and materials, storing equipment, and
* temporary construction trailers, and paving surfaces.
The EPA also proposed a new definition of "pollutant-emitting activities." Under that proposed definition, pollutant-emitting activities would include equipment or components in a process or operation that emit or have the potential to emit a regulated NSR pollutant.
The proposal would exclude several categories of structures and systems that were previously subject to at least a portion of the regulation, including:
* office buildings, retail stores, certain storage buildings,
* certain concrete pads and building foundations,
* walls, and roofs not specifically configured to support emitting equipment,
* HVAC for human workspaces,
* utility-service wiring and piping, and
* certain sealed junctions or tie-ins.
The EPA's stated policy objective is to move away from a test focused on whether work is "permanent" or "costly" and instead require a permit only before construction begins on components or equipment that emit air pollution.
Why This Matters for Data Center Projects
For data center developers, the proposal could be significant for projects that need to move quickly while air permitting for emissions-related equipment is still pending. The EPA specifically stated that the rule is intended to allow construction of non-emitting components such as utility service infrastructure, concrete pads, and some buildings and building components before an NSR permit is obtained. The EPA also acknowledged that the proposed changes are intended to help owners and operators expedite completion of construction projects and to manage seasonal construction constraints more effectively.
For large developers, this could offer more schedule flexibility, preserve procurement windows, reduce weather-related delay, and better align commissioning schedules. That said, the proposal would not eliminate NSR permitting obligations for emissions-related units, and the EPA repeatedly emphasizes that the owner or operator is still responsible for compliance with applicable regulations for any pre-permit construction allowed under the rule.
That caveat matters in the data center context. If later permitting requires design changes, additional controls, or reconfiguration of emissions-related systems, the EPA's proposal makes clear that prior site investment should not justify permit issuance. So, while the proposal could improve schedule optionality, it doesn't prevent permitting authorities from requiring redesign or denying a permit if the Clean Air Act's criteria are not satisfied.
Broader Implications Beyond Data Centers
The proposal is not data center-specific andindustries unrelated to data centers may see similar opportunities and risks.
For example, advanced manufacturing, semiconductors, life sciences, logistics, food processing, energy, chemicals, and other sectors often build substantial non-emitting infrastructure before or alongside installation of emissions-related equipment. The EPA also noted that stakeholders have raised concerns for years that the current rule delays projects and frustrates staged construction schedules, including where seasonal conditions constrain construction windows. Those concerns are hardly unique to data centers.
Key Cautions for Project Sponsors
Even if finalized, the rule would not give project sponsors a blank check to build first and permit later. The EPA made clear reviewing authorities will still need to make case-by-case, project-specific judgments, because it will be difficult to draw a regulatory line that addresses every circumstance. The EPA also stressed that other federal, state, and local requirements may continue to limit pre-permit activity, including other Clean Air Act requirements, other environmental statutes, and non-EPA permitting or licensing requirements.
If finalized, the rule is likely to become an important project-planning tool - but not a substitute for careful air permitting strategy. Working with subject matter experts in the environmental permitting space to collaborate with onsite planning will be key if the proposal goes into effect. Fisher Phillip's Workplace Safety Team can assist planning and development teams in ensuring compliance while expediting construction.
Accordingly, companies planning large construction projects should consider:
1. reassessing project sequencing assumptions for non-emitting site and structural work;
2. identifying which components may be viewed as specifically and uniquely configured to serve emitting equipment;
3. preserving flexibility in design and procurement in case permit conditions later require changes; and
4. evaluating state and local implementation issues, especially where approved SIP rules, delegated programs, or local interpretations may affect how quickly any federal revisions translate into practice.
Conclusion
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor the EPA rulemaking process and update employers as needed, so make sure you are signed up for Fisher Phillips' Insight System to receive updates straight to your inbox. If you have questions about permitting or compliance with EPA rules, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any member of our Workplace Safety and Catastrophe Management Practice Group.
* * *
Related People
Karl F. Kumli
Of Counsel
617 532 5898
kkumli@fisherphillips.com
* * *
John D. Surma
Partner
713.292.5633
jsurma@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/epa-proposes-to-loosen-nsr-begin-actual-construction-limits
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath Issues Commentary: OMB Proposes Extensive Reformation of Federal Grant Regulations
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, June 3 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 2, 2026, by senior counsel John G. Horan, partners Dana B. Pashkoff and Jessica C. Abrahams and associates Michelle Y. Francois and Asher Friedman Young:* * *
OMB Proposes Extensive Reformation of Federal Grant Regulations
Proposed Rule Would Introduce Political Oversight of Grant Awards, Broad New Termination Powers, and Cross-Cutting Restrictions on Grant Activities and Allowable Costs
At a Glance
* OMB's proposed rule would require senior political appointees to conduct ... Show Full Article MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, June 3 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 2, 2026, by senior counsel John G. Horan, partners Dana B. Pashkoff and Jessica C. Abrahams and associates Michelle Y. Francois and Asher Friedman Young: * * * OMB Proposes Extensive Reformation of Federal Grant Regulations Proposed Rule Would Introduce Political Oversight of Grant Awards, Broad New Termination Powers, and Cross-Cutting Restrictions on Grant Activities and Allowable Costs At a Glance * OMB's proposed rule would require senior political appointees to conduct"pre-issuance review" of every discretionary grant, explicitly reducing the role of peer review and mandating that awards "demonstrably advance the President's policy priorities."
* Federal agencies would gain authority to terminate or suspend active discretionary awards at any time based on agency "interest," mirroring "termination for convenience" provisions contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
* The proposed rule would also incorporate cross-cutting prohibitions on DEI-related activities, "gender ideology," disparate-impact liability theories, and collaboration with covered foreign entities into all federal awards, while significantly narrowing allowable costs for publication, conferences, memberships, and public communications.
* Public comments on the rule are due by July 13, 2026.
-
On May 29, 2026, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would fundamentally alter government-wide policies governing federal grants, cooperative agreements, and other forms of financial assistance. The proposed rule, issued jointly with dozens of federal grantmaking agencies, would amend provisions under Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and agency-specific regulations in 2 CFR Subtitle B, affecting virtually every federal agency that makes financial assistance awards. Since January 2025, federal agencies have terminated thousands of grants and funding vehicles and have faced significant lawsuits and legal challenges in doing so. The proposed rule would further those efforts to exert greater federal control over grants and federal financial assistance. Public comments on the rule are due by July 13, 2026, and the finalized rule is proposed to take effect on October 1, 2026.
Notably, although the current provisions in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR Part 200 are commonly incorporated into the majority of federal awards, the proposed rule would reclassify OMB's government-wide requirements in 2 CFR Subtitle A from "guidance" to a binding "OMB regulation" (i.e., the "Uniform Grants Regulation"). If enacted, the proposed rule would eliminate the prior framework under which individual agencies had flexibility to adopt OMB's Uniform Guidance through their own implementing regulations and would assign a level of discretion to political appointees previously accorded to agencies to define their own needs. Going forward, OMB amendments would apply directly to agencies upon the effective date of OMB's final rulemaking, without requiring separate agency-by-agency adoption.
This alert summarizes the provisions most likely to affect federal grant recipients, including universities, nonprofits, state and local governments, research institutions, and private-sector entities engaged in federally funded work. We also offer brief practical guidance and considerations for the comment period ahead.
Key Regulatory Provisions
Reporting, Oversight, and Implementation
One of the most consequential changes in the proposed rule is the requirement that senior political appointees conduct a "pre-issuance review" of every discretionary grant before it is awarded. Under proposed Sec. 200.205(b), agency heads must designate one or more senior appointees to review all discretionary awards, applying a set of enumerated principles that include determining whether awards "demonstrably advance the President's policy priorities."
The proposed rule explicitly provides that peer review recommendations "remain advisory and are not ministerially ratified, routinely deferred to, or otherwise treated as de facto binding by senior appointees or their designees." Senior appointees are instructed to use their "independent judgment" and must not "routinely defer to the recommendations of others." Taken together, the new process represents a significant departure from the previous grantmaking model, under which independent expert peer review was the primary mechanism for determining scientific priorities at various federal agencies.
Under the proposed rule, senior appointees would be required to apply a range of principles as part of their pre-issuance review process, including directives that discretionary awards are not be used to fund racial preferences, "denial . . . of the sex binary in humans," illegal immigration, or "any other initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values." Additionally, the proposed rule builds on the concept of "Gold Standard Science," previously announced in Executive Order 14303, requiring that grants "include benchmarks for measuring success and progress towards relevant goals." However, the proposed rule does not provide a more detailed definition of "Gold Standard Science," raising questions about the breadth of how senior appointees may apply this principle.
Expanded Termination and Suspension Authority
The proposed rule significantly expands the authority of federal agencies to terminate or suspend active grants. Under proposed Sec. 200.340(a)(2), agencies would be able to terminate any discretionary grant "in part or its entirety" whenever an agency determines that termination is "in the interest of the [f]ederal agency," including if the award no longer effectuates "program goals, [f]ederal agency priorities, or the national interest as they exist at the time of the termination." This language reflects an expansion upon the current termination language, which permits termination "pursuant to the terms and conditions of the [f]ederal award, including, to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities." In the proposed rule, OMB has framed this provision as analogous to the long-standing "termination for convenience" clause used in federal procurement contracts under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and it would essentially give the government the ability to terminate funding vehicles for any reason whatsoever.
Critically, the proposed rule does not require a finding of noncompliance or fraud to justify a discretionary termination. Instead, the agency need only provide "a brief summary of the reason or reasons for finding that termination is in the interest of the [f]ederal agency." Moreover, the proposed rule explicitly provides that agencies are "not required to allow for objections, hearings, and appeals related to any reasons for termination except termination for noncompliance." As such, the proposed rule would both provide the government with unlimited termination rights and potentially implicate the corresponding due process rights of terminated grantees. The new termination and suspension provisions would also undermine the certainty and consistency associated with grant programs -- a critical aspect of grant performance and one that distinguishes federal grants from federal contracts.
The rule also introduces a new temporary suspension authority at Sec. 200.340(e), permitting agencies to issue a written stop-work order for up to 90 days "if the [f]ederal agency or pass-through entity determines that a suspension is in the interest of the [f]ederal agency or pass-through entity." Although agencies are directed to include both the termination and suspension provisions in the terms and conditions of all discretionary awards, certain programs are excepted from the discretionary termination and suspension provisions, including "[f]ederal awards made under programs where legislation establishes an entitlement to the funds on the part of the recipient, such as block grants, those awarded based on a statutory formula, or disaster recovery grants." The discretionary termination provision also does not apply to agreements entered into in furtherance of international trade agreements, the CHIPS Act, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
National Policy Priorities and Grant Conditions
Consistent with the administration's efforts to apply greater scrutiny towards federal grant activities, the proposed rule would embed several cross-cutting national policy conditions into all federal awards through revisions to Sec. 200.300. Specifically, agencies would be prohibited from using federal grant awards to "fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate" DEI policies or practices "that violate any applicable [f]ederal anti-discrimination laws," "gender ideology" as defined in EO 14168, or gender transition for individuals under 19 years of age. Noncompliance with this clause is considered a "material breach" triggering termination. Recipients of federal funding conducting these activities with nonfederal funds could also still face risk if the activity is argued to be "facilitated" by the award itself, potentially expanding the scope of the provision.
A new Sec. 200.218 would also broadly prohibit the use of federal awards to promote or support "theories of disparate-impact liability," requiring agencies and recipients to eliminate the use of such theories in all contexts relevant to federal awards. The proposed rule would prohibit federal awards from being used "in support of disparate-impact studies, disparate-impact litigation, or other related activities," and agencies would be directed to ensure "that [f]ederal award activities based on the assumed risk of disparate-impact liability are not allowed." Recipients and subrecipients would also be prohibited from adopting or enforcing disparate-impact liability standards in administering federally funded programs, raising significant questions about the ability of recipients to conduct scientific and other academic research studies assessing the effects of policies or other phenomena on different demographic groups.
Importantly, these conditions would apply across all agencies and programs as general award conditions, not merely to targeted research grants. Institutions conducting work in these areas with nonfederal funds face risk that agency reviewers could argue federal awards indirectly "facilitate" prohibited activities, underscoring the importance of clear financial separation procedures for federal funding recipients going forward.
Prohibition on Foreign Collaborations
Of particular importance for biomedical companies and other entities in the pharmaceutical space, proposed Sec. 200.220 would bar the use of any federal funds (including indirect costs) for collaboration with "covered foreign countries" or "covered foreign entities," including foreign adversaries, countries of particular concern, sanctioned nations, and entities owned by or acting on behalf of such countries. Exceptions under this section would require agency-head approval.
This restriction would extend well beyond China and may disrupt longstanding partnerships for companies conducting multisite international clinical trials. Such trials may need to be restructured or funded with nonfederal dollars as a result.
Changes to Grant Structures, Allowable Costs, and Cost Principles
Consistent with a recent executive order affecting federal contracts, proposed Sec.Sec. 200.201-200.202 would eliminate fixed amount awards and subawards unless otherwise authorized by Federal statute. The proposed rule also makes significant changes to 2 C.F.R. Subpart E (Cost Principles), narrowing or eliminating the allowability of several categories of costs:
* Publication and printing costs (Sec. 200.461). Publication costs would be unallowable unless expressly required by statute or approved in advance by the federal agency on a case-by-case basis. Despite the role of publication in various research-related grants, the proposed rule states that such costs "are not inherently necessary to carry out the core programmatic objectives of most [f]ederal awards."
* Conference attendance (Sec. 200.432). Costs for attending conferences would be allowable "only if participation in the conference is expressly approved by the [f]ederal agency and included in the terms and conditions of the [f]ederal award."
* Advertising and public relations (Sec. 200.421). All advertising and public relations costs would be unallowable except those specifically required by statute or for narrow purposes, such as the procurement of goods and services for the performance of the award, the disposal of surplus materials acquired in the performance of the award, or for program advertising and outreach (e.g., recruiting project participants).
* Memberships and subscriptions (Sec. 200.454). Membership costs in professional, civic, business, and technical organizations would require prior written agency approval and must be necessary to fulfill award requirements. Journal subscriptions would be categorically unallowable under the proposed rule.
* Lobbying and issue advocacy (Sec. 200.450). The rule expands the definition of unallowable lobbying to include voter registration campaigns, issue advocacy unrelated to the statutory objectives of the funded award, and "[a]ttempting to influence the executive branch of any [s]tate government on matters unrelated to the objectives or performance requirements of the [f]ederal award."
Notably, OMB explicitly declined to propose changes to the indirect cost rate negotiation system in this rulemaking. However, it stated that it "may consider issuing a request for information on this topic in the future," and the proposed rule establishes an explicit preference for awarding grants to institutions with lower indirect cost rates and restricts the use of indirect cost funds for publication, certain international activities, and other newly-prohibited categories of costs.
Prohibition on Foreign Collaborations
Beyond policies restricting the types of grant activities that may be funded, the proposed rule introduces several new compliance obligations for recipients:
* Risk-based applicant review (Sec. 200.206). Agencies are instructed to establish and maintain policies and procedures for conducting a risk assessment to evaluate risks posed by applicants before issuing federal awards, including an applicant's affiliations with organizations that "violate [f]ederal law, undermine public safety or national security, or advocate for the overthrow of the United States [g]overnment," as well as compliance with foreign gift and contract disclosure requirements under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act.
* E-Verify (Sec. 200.303(f)). All federal grant recipients and subrecipients would be required to enroll in and use the Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify system for every employee and contractor performing work under a federal award. Any final nonconfirmation notice must be reported to the awarding agency.
* Payment justifications (Sec. 200.305). Payment requests from recipients must include justifications describing the purpose of the payment and the specific award-related work it supports. Federal agencies are also directed to review available data sources with relevant information on the eligibility of federal funding recipients included in the Department of the Treasury's "Do Not Pay (DNP) System" to verify eligibility prior to making any award payments.
* Conflict of interest disclosure (Sec. 200.112). Federal funding recipients must disclose whether any employees who worked on the proposal or will support the award were employed by the awarding agency within the preceding two years.
Comment Period and Implementation Timeline
The public comment deadline is July 13, 2026. Comments must be submitted electronically under docket OMB-2026-0034. OMB plans to propose a final rule that will be effective October 1, 2026, which would make the final rule applicable to all new FY2027 awards.
Implications for Federal Grant Recipients
The breadth of the proposed changes poses significant potential challenges for federal grant recipients, including those receiving federal sub-awards. Federal grant recipients should review the proposed rule immediately and consider preparing substantive comments on provisions most relevant to their operations, potentially in conjunction with other similarly positioned entities.
As with other recent executive orders and federal policy changes, federal grant recipients should also evaluate their current policies, programs, and activities against the proposed rule to determine what activities might pose the greatest risks. Where organizational activities implicate prohibited categories, organizations should begin considering how to establish clear financial and operational separation between federally funded activities and those funded by other sources. Federal funding recipients who partner with international organizations should also assess whether those collaborations involve "covered foreign countries" or affiliated entities and determine whether any exceptions might apply going forward.
Key Takeaway
Federal grant recipients should coordinate closely with their agency grant officials in the coming months, particularly as agencies may issue further internal guidance or communications..
For More Information
For further information, you may contact the authors. Faegre Drinker's government contracts and education teams will continue to monitor additional developments, relevant litigation updates, and further agency guidance in the coming weeks.
* * *
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Jessica C. Abrahams
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5361
jessica.abrahams@faegredrinker.com
* * *
John G. (Jack) Horan
Senior Counsel
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5362
john.horan@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Dana B. Pashkoff
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5364
dana.pashkoff@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Michelle Y. Francois
Associate
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5394
michelle.francois@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Asher Friedman Young
Associate
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5309
asher.young@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/6/omb-proposes-extensive-reformation-of-federal-grant-regulations
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Crowell & Moring Relocates D.C. Office to Newly Redeveloped Space In Penn Quarter
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- Crowell and Moring, a law firm, issued the following news:* * *
Crowell & Moring Relocates D.C. Office to Newly Redeveloped Space In Penn Quarter
Crowell & Moring has moved into new office space at the recently redeveloped former headquarters of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in the Penn Quarter neighborhood of Washington, D.C. The firm occupies nearly 200,000 square feet over the top six floors of the building. Even with the firm's significant expansion in DC, its new space is nearly 50% less than its previous footprint. This move is the latest for ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 3 -- Crowell and Moring, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Crowell & Moring Relocates D.C. Office to Newly Redeveloped Space In Penn Quarter Crowell & Moring has moved into new office space at the recently redeveloped former headquarters of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in the Penn Quarter neighborhood of Washington, D.C. The firm occupies nearly 200,000 square feet over the top six floors of the building. Even with the firm's significant expansion in DC, its new space is nearly 50% less than its previous footprint. This move is the latest forCrowell, which has relocated to premier space in New York, London, and Chicago over the past two years amid robust growth across the firm.
The move from the firm's former home at 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, where the firm's DC office was located for nearly 40 years, represents the start of an exciting new chapter for Crowell in the city where it was founded. The office features a vertical campus concept with floors linked by internal staircases, as well as living walls and art installations that pay tribute to the local neighborhood. The fully redeveloped building features terraces on every other floor of Crowell's space, providing access to extensive outdoor space rarely seen in Washington, D.C. The firm's new office is in close proximity to courthouses and federal agencies and is situated within a vibrant area that is influenced by history, culture and hospitality.
"The opening of our new Washington office reflects a continued investment in our people, our clients, and the future of the firm. This space is designed to foster collaboration and position us to meet the increasingly complex challenges facing clients operating at the intersection of law, policy, and regulation," said Steve McBrady, Managing Partner of Crowell's D.C. office and a member of the firm's Executive Committee. "We believe that great firms are built around great people. So we consciously designed our new office with an efficient floor plan and market-leading technology, to create opportunities for collaboration, mentorship, and innovation, to foster the culture that defines Crowell both inside and outside the building."
"As our firm continues to grow, we have made it a priority to ensure our offices across the world are efficiently designed to support the collaborative and solution-driven approach we take to supporting clients in a dynamic business environment," said Philip T. Inglima, Chair of Crowell's Management Board. "In the past two years, we have relocated four offices to premier spaces designed to elevate the client experience and further our engagement in our local communities."
The building, originally known as the Jackson Graham Building, served as the headquarters for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority from 1974 to 2022. It served as the main administrative hub for WMATA during the construction and expansion of the region's Metrorail system. The building has undergone a complete renovation and expansion, including the addition of three new floors to the top of the original foundation. Crowell will be the first tenant in the newly completed 600 Fifth.
"Washington, D.C. has always been central to Crowell's identity and mission. Opening this office represents more than a move--it is a reaffirmation of our commitment to the city, the institutions we work with, and the clients we serve from the nation's capital," said McBrady.
"Our new space is structured to align with the needs of our expanding D.C. office and the expectations of the modern workforce," said Joseph J. Palermo, Crowell's Chief Operating Officer. "From creative meeting and event spaces for clients and our team, to technology solutions that seamlessly connect our colleagues in offices around the world, our new DC office was designed to inspire innovation and elevated client service."
Crowell's D.C. move is the fourth office relocation in the last two years. In June of 2025, the London office moved to newly built-out space at 199 Bishopsgate. Last November, the Chicago office relocated to premier customized space at 300 N. LaSalle amid significant recent growth. And in January 2024, the New York office moved to brand new space at Two Manhattan West in Hudson Yards where it has continued to expand its footprint.
* * *
About Crowell & Moring LLP
Crowell & Moring is an international law firm with operations in the United States, Europe, and MENA. Drawing on significant government, business, industry, and legal experience, the firm helps clients capitalize on opportunities and provides creative solutions to complex regulatory and policy, litigation, transactional, and intellectual property issues. The firm is consistently recognized for its commitment to pro bono service, as well as its comprehensive programs and initiatives to advance the professional and personal development of all members of the Crowell community.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/firm-news/crowell-and-moring-relocates-dc-office-to-newly-redeveloped-space-in-penn-quarter
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]