Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: United States Department of Justice

An Arizona man was sentenced Friday to 15 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $452 million in restitution for conspiring to defraud Medicare and other federal health care benefit programs of more than $1 billion by operating a platform that generated false doctors’ orders used to support fraudulent claims for various medical items.

Source: United States Department of Justice

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan this week granted Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership (Enbridge)’s motion for summary judgment and stopped the State of Michigan from shutting down a critical international pipeline called Line 5. In September, the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) and Civil Division filed a statement of interest in the case.

“This ruling by the court reaffirms the federal government’s unique responsibilities in regulating interstate pipelines and enforcing international treaties,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD). “If a state exceeds its authority to disrupt the flow of energy, we will step in to re-assert the federal government’s prerogative. President Trump has set America on a strong, winning path toward securing energy dominance. This ruling undergirds that effort.”

In 2020, Michigan tried to shut down the pipeline by moving to stop Enbridge from using an easement, which had allowed the pipeline to run underneath the Straits of Mackinac between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron for decades. The court held that federal law preempts Michigan’s efforts to shut down the pipeline, for two reasons.

First, the Pipeline Safety Act provides exclusive authority to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to set nationwide safety standards for interstate pipelines and related infrastructure. The Act prevents a state from imposing its own safety standards on an interstate (and an international) pipeline. The court concluded that Michigan “unlawfully” attempted to “regulate the safety of Line 5 by attempting to shut it down” and by “‘continuing in force’ numerous state safety standards found” in the easement.

Second, the pipeline is subject to a treaty between the United States and Canada, and the United States has an express policy preference in favor of the uninterrupted flow of oil through international pipelines. And, as the court recognized, a “compelled shutdown of an international pipeline blatantly defies” that federal foreign policy. 

Chief of Staff and Senior General Counsel John Adams of ENRD filed the statement of interest.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Baltimore, Maryland – Three men received life sentences, today, for federal conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise involving murders, attempted murders, and drug trafficking, as well as murder in aid of racketeering charges. Wilson Arturo “Humilde” “Marco Saravia” Constanza-Galdomez, 26, of El Salvador; Edis Omar “Little Felon” Valenzuela-Rodriguez, 24, of Honduras; and Jonathan “Truney” Pesquera-Puerto, 24, all received the mandatory sentence.  

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Today a federal jury in Brooklyn returned guilty verdicts against national MS-13 leaders Edenilson Velasquez Larin, also known as “Agresor,” Saturno,” “Tiny,” and “Paco,”; Hugo Diaz Amaya, also known as “21”; Fulton Locos Salvatruchas (Fulton) clique leader Jose Espinoza Sanchez, also known as “Cable,” “Bleca,” and “Fantasma”; and Fulton member Jose Arevalao Iraheta, also known as “Splinter,” “Inesperado,” and “Daniel.”  The four defendants were convicted on 24 counts of a third superseding indictment. 

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Today, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the case of Davis et al. v. Hanna Holdings Inc. The lawsuit, brought by homebuyers, alleges that real-estate brokerages and their trade association, the National Association of Realtors, entered into anticompetitive agreements that inflated broker commissions and raised home prices for Americans. The statement of interest explains that competition among real-estate brokerages is critical for protecting American homebuyers and that trade association rules are subject to antitrust scrutiny in a number of ways.

“Purchasing a home is the single biggest purchase most Americans make in a lifetime,” said Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Today’s soaring housing prices make competition in real estate brokerage more important than ever. Antitrust laws are key to safeguarding competition, which reduces prices and improves services for homebuyers.”

Americans spend about a third of their budgets on housing and housing-related costs. Yet real-estate broker commissions in the United States have remained at 5% to 6% for decades — two to three times more than that in other developed economies. Trade association rules that artificially inflate broker commissions and increase the burden on American consumers must be closely scrutinized by antitrust laws.

U.S. courts have long recognized that trade associations violate the antitrust laws when they unreasonably restrict competition among their members. While taking no position on the ultimate disposition of the case, the statement of interest explains that competition among real-estate brokerages is critical for protecting American homebuyers and that the antitrust laws provide a remedy when real-estate brokers agree to stop competing with one another — whatever form that agreement takes. When plaintiffs challenge trade association rules that embody an agreement among competitors, the rules are subject to a challenge under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition, the statement of interest explains that association rules are not automatically exempt from the per se rule prohibiting horizontal price fixing.

The Antitrust Division routinely files statements of interest and amicus briefs in federal court where doing so helps protect competition and consumers, including by encouraging the sound development of the antitrust laws.