By Bob Van Voris
The Trump administration (click here) can block states from receiving Justice Department grants if they fail to help with federal immigration enforcement, a U.S. appeals court in Manhattan ruled, in a significant win that sets up a possible Supreme Court showdown.
Six states including New York and New Jersey sued in 2018 claiming the U.S. was trying to coerce states and cities into enforcing the administration’s immigration policies by illegally threatening to withhold federal criminal justice grants. A federal judge ordered the government to release funds withheld under the policy and blocked it from imposing immigration-related restrictions on the funds, known as Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants....
It is right and best to be concerned about the Barr DOJ simply because it jumps to awareness and action with every word stated by Trump. There must be a real concern that the Barr DOJ is actually influenced by Russia through Trump and his relationship with Putin's Russia. Basically, Putin is pulling Barr's chain and in return Barr is weakening the Rule of Law.
As far as these grants are concerned, it is pure coercion and violates States' Rights. New York and New Jersey are strongly Democratic states as well. It is all political.
First, Trump can't be prosecuted and now there are memos emerging that take the Rule of Law to task. What is the legal definition of unfair?
February 1, 2018
By David M. Glaser
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) (click here) has issued another memo likely to help healthcare providers avoid potentially unfair government investigations.
The Jan. 25 memo from Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand to the heads of all civil litigation components and U.S. Attorney’s offices instructs the government lawyers to refrain from using government “guidance documents” when bringing a case. (When this happens, it is often referred to as “affirmative civil enforcement,” or ACE)....
......................................................................
16 May 2019
By Jennifer Z. Belveal, Thomas F. Carlucci, Melissa B. Coffey, Pamela L. Johnston, Jessica E. Joseph, Michael P. Matthews, Lisa M. Noller, Lori A. Rubin and Michael J. Tuteur
In a memo leaked last year (the Granston Memo), (click here) the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) instructed its prosecutors to more seriously consider dismissing meritless whistleblower False Claims Act (FCA) cases when it is in the government’s best interest to do so. See “Leaked DOJ Memo Indicates New Government Focus On Dismissing Meritless False Claims Act Cases,” Health Care Law Today (January 29, 2018). A Pennsylvania federal judge recently provided important additional guidance on the limitations to DOJ’s dismissal authority, specifically rejecting the notion that the government’s right to dismiss is “unfettered.” United States v. EMD Serono, Inc., Civil Action No. 16-5594, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57150 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 3, 2019).
Although DOJ has incorporated the Granston Memo’s policy into its practices in the year since its release, there has not been a spree of dismissals. This may be due in part to the restrictions that many courts — now including the Eastern District of Pennsylvania — have imposed on the government’s discretion to dismiss cases....
February 26, 2020
By Piliero Mazza, PLLC
In 2019, we saw an upward trend in motions to dismiss filed by DOJ in qui tam actions in which the government failed to intervene. The government’s decision to file a motion to dismiss in a qui tam action is informed by the Granston Memorandum, which was issued in 2018. The Granston Memorandum provides a number of factors for the government to consider when deciding whether to seek strategic dismissal of a qui tam action, including curbing meritless FCA litigation, preserving government resources, and preventing interference with agency policies and programs. Prior to the Granston Memorandum, the DOJ rarely sought dismissal of qui tam cases. In fact, in the thirty years preceding the Granston Memorandum, the DOJ had sought dismissal of only 45 cases; the DOJ has dismissed approximately that same number of cases in the two years since the Granston Memorandum was issued. Citing the government’s role as a “gatekeeper” and its goal of “protect[ing] the integrity of the False Claims Act,” AG Cox expressed DOJ’s intent to “judicious[ly]” and “more consistent[ly]” rein in whistleblower overreach.
Although DOJ generally seeks dismissal of qui tam litigation in a modest number of cases, AG Cox confirmed our expectation that the government will continue to seek dismissal of unjustified qui tam complaints in 2020.
