Plugging the "Gaps" on Transfers of U.S. Sensitive Emerging Technology: New and Permanent Dual-Use Export Control Statutory Authority Becomes Law
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.16.18
The Export Control Reform Act of 2018, included within the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019, became law on August 13, 2018, and provides “modern” and permanent statutory authority for the U.S. Export Administration regulations (EAR), which control the export, re-export, and transfer of U.S. origin “dual-use” items. As a result of the effort to strengthen control over foreign investment in the United States (contained in a companion statute within the NDAA), the law directs the Commerce Department to establish an inter-agency process, subject to a public notice and comment period, for the identification of “emerging and foundational technologies” that are essential to the national security of the United States, and requires the imposition of licensing requirements (even if unilateral) at least for transfers of such technologies to U.S. arms embargoed countries, which includes China. With respect to potential technologies likely to incur heightened scrutiny, a Commerce Department industry event in May of this year highlighted U.S. advancements vis-a-vis Europe and China in the areas of artificial intelligence (particularly autonomy, and human-AI interaction), 5G technology, and robotics, among others.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
