PODCAST: Announcing Crowell & Moring’s Regulatory Forecast 2017 and Trump: The First Year Series — C&M's Trump: The First Year Series
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.11.17
On May 9, Crowell & Moring launched its third annual Regulatory Forecast. The 2017 edition, subtitled “What Trump Means for Business,” provides in-depth analysis on how the new administration, Congress, and the federal courts are changing the regulatory landscape and what it means for business in the months ahead. With this publication, we are also announcing the launch of our new Trump: The First Year series about the regulatory changes emerging from the White House under the new administration. In this first episode of the series, Regulatory Forecast co-editors Dan Wolff and Richard Lehfeldt sit down to discuss the Forecast and what to expect from the series.
In this 12 minute podcast, Richard and Dan discuss what you will find in our Regulatory Forecast 2017 and what lessons businesses should take from the publication. The forecast is available at crowell.com/regulatoryforecast.
Click below to listen or access from one of these links:
PodBean | SoundCloud | iTunes
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
