Category: MIL-OSI

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

The Justice Department announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against the city of Hattiesburg, Mississippi for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by terminating a former employee who opposed and complained about sexual harassment in the workplace.

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex and religion and prohibits retaliation against employees for opposing discriminatory employment practices. According to the Department’s complaint, filed today in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, the city terminated former employee, Hope Chatman, after she reported sexual harassment and refused to sit near her harasser after reporting his conduct to management. The complaint seeks damages, back pay, and revisions to the City’s policies, practices, and procedures to prevent and remedy retaliation that violates Title VII.

“No one who speaks up against workplace sexual harassment should face retaliation for doing so. The Department is committed to fully enforcing our federal employment discrimination laws, including through banning sexual harassment and retaliation,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. 

This case stems from a charge of discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and investigated by the EEOC’s Jackson Area office. The EEOC investigated the charge and found reasonable cause to believe the city violated Title VII. After unsuccessful conciliation efforts, the EEOC referred the charge to the Justice Department.

You can view the complaint here.

Employees with complaints of sexual harassment can report them to their local EEOC office or their respective state or local fair employment practices agencies. The contact information for each local EEOC office can be found at www.eeoc.gov/field-office. 

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Today, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington recognized the successful completion of the consent decree in United States v. City of Seattle, returning complete control of the Seattle Police Department (SPD) to the City. The 13-year consent decree effort addressed use of force, crisis intervention, stops and detentions, supervision and accountability.

“We congratulate the Seattle Police Department on its achievement of sustained substantial compliance with this consent decree,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “We are proud to stand by the men and women of the Seattle Police Department as federal oversight ends and the court returns full control of local law enforcement to the city.”

“The Seattle Police Department has worked over many years to develop and implement policies and procedures that have transformed the department into an example for other police forces,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Teal Luthy Miller for the Western District of Washington. “Multiple Police Chiefs, city leaders, community stakeholders, and U.S. Attorneys have supported that effort. I commend the hard work that has led to the end of the consent decree.”

In 2011, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington jointly initiated an investigation into the SPD under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. After concluding the investigation, in 2012 the United States and the City of Seattle entered into a consent decree to address the investigation’s findings that SPD engaged in a pattern or practice of unnecessary or excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 2023, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate most of the consent decree’s requirements. The City and the Department worked collaboratively toward completion of the last remaining requirements, leading to today’s termination of the consent decree and final dismissal of the lawsuit.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Yesterday the U.S. Department of Justice transmitted a legislative proposal to Congress that protects and defends children from chemical and surgical mutilation under the guise of “gender-affirming care,” in line with Executive Order 14187.

The Victims of Chemical or Surgical Mutilation Act (VCSMA), led by Representative Bob Onder (R, MO-03) and Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), prohibits healthcare professionals, physicians, hospitals, or clinics from participating in the chemical or surgical mutilation of a child and creates a private right of action for children and the parents of children whose healthy body parts have been damaged by medical professionals practicing chemical and surgical mutilation.

“The Department of Justice has heard from far too many families who have been devastated by mutilative medical procedures that fly in the face of basic biology,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “While we continue our ongoing legal battle to protect children, we appreciate our colleagues in Congress who are working diligently alongside us to end these abusive procedures once and for all.”

Read The Victims of Chemical or Surgical Mutilation Act HERE.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

The United States filed a denaturalization action in the Western District of Virginia yesterday against Slobodan Letic, a native of Croatia, who, according to the Department of Justice’s complaint, concealed and misrepresented his involvement in the beating, torture, and sexual assault of civilians in the Bosnian War in 1992, when he was an officer in the Bosnian Serb army. Letic took two women detainees out of a camp before driving them to an apartment where he beat and raped them. After the women were released from the camp, Letic later found one of them walking in the streets and again took her to an abandoned house and forcefully raped her. Letic also invaded the homes of other civilians in Bosnia and inflicted severe beatings, torture, and mock executions on them.

Letic concealed his involvement in war crimes and acts of persecution throughout his immigration and naturalization proceedings after entering the United States by claiming to be a refugee in 2000. Additionally, the civil complaint alleges that Letic concealed his Bosnian criminal convictions for corruption-related acts he performed as a police officer after the war. Letic naturalized as a U.S. citizen on Sept. 22, 2006.

“The United States is not a safe haven for war criminals and human rights violators,” said Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “Letic entered our country posing as a victim of persecution when in fact he had committed horrendous acts as a persecutor of others. He took advantage of our generous system for refugee admissions and should not have been granted U.S. citizenship. This action seeks to redress that wrong, and we are committed to upholding the integrity of the naturalization process against fraud and misrepresentation.”

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a naturalized U.S. citizen’s citizenship may be revoked, and his certificate of naturalization canceled, if the naturalization was illegally procured or procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.

This case was investigated by the Civil Division’s Office of Immigration Litigation, with assistance from the FBI, Homeland Security Investigations Historian William Tomljanovich and Attaché John Christoforo of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the government of Bosnia. The litigation is being handled by Trial Attorney Christopher Lyerla and reviewed by Max Weintraub of the Office of Immigration Litigation, General Litigation and Appeals Section, Affirmative Litigation Unit.

The claims made in the complaint are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Today, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division won significant remedies in its monopolization case against Google in online search. In United States et al. v. Google, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia prohibited Google from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app; ordered Google to make certain search index and user-interaction data available to rivals and potential rivals; and ordered Google to offer search and search text ads syndication services to enable rivals and potential rivals to compete.

The court’s ruling today recognizes the need for remedies that will pry open the market for general search services, which has been frozen in place for over a decade. The ruling also recognizes the need to prevent Google from using the same anticompetitive tactics for its GenAI products as it used to monopolize the search market, and the remedies will reach GenAI technologies and companies.

“This decision marks an important step forward in the Department of Justice’s ongoing fight to protect American consumers. Under President Trump’s leadership, we will continue our legal efforts to hold companies accountable for monopolistic practices,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi.  

“The first Trump administration sued Google to restore competition for millions of Americans subjected to Google’s monopoly abuses. Today, the second Trump administration has won a remedy to do just that,” said Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “We will continue to review the opinion to consider the Department’s options and next steps regarding seeking additional relief. I am immensely proud of the dedicated public servants of the Antitrust Division and their tireless work on this case alongside our state partners.”

Filed in President Trump’s first term, the Justice Department’s case against the Google search monopoly has unified the country. The Department’s original filing in October 2020 was joined by eleven State Attorneys General. Additional states filed a related action as the case progressed, and ultimately, the United States was joined in pursuing the remedies ordered today by 49 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia.

Under the remedies ordered today, Google will be barred from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app. Google cannot enter or maintain agreements that (1) condition the licensing of any Google application on the distribution, preloading, or placement of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or the Gemini app anywhere on a device; (2) condition the receipt of revenue share payments for the placement of one Google application on the placement of another Google application; or (3) condition the receipt of revenue share payments on maintaining Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or the Gemini app on any device, browser, or search access point for more than one year; or (4) prohibit any partner from simultaneously distributing any other GSE, browser, or GenAI product.

In addition, Google will have to make certain search index and user-interaction data available to certain competitors. Google will also be required to offer certain competitors search and search text ads syndication services, which will open up the market by enabling rivals and potential rivals to deliver high-quality search results and ads and compete with Google as they develop their own capacity.

For years, Google accounted for approximately 90 percent of all search queries in the United States, and Google used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in search and search advertising. Google entered into a series of exclusionary agreements that collectively locked up the primary avenues through which users access online search, requiring that Google be the preset default general search engine on billions of mobile devices and computers and, in many cases, prohibiting preinstallation of a competitor. Using its monopoly profits, Google bought preferential treatment for its search engine and created a self-reinforcing cycle of monopolization — shutting out potential competitors, reducing innovation, and taking choice away from American consumers.

The Department of Justice and the states proved that Google broke the law over the course of a bench trial that started in September 2023 and lasted nine weeks. In August 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia released a 277-page opinion, concluding that “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly” in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Today’s decision follows a 15-day remedies trial in May 2025.