Tag Archives: attorneys

20 State Attorneys General File Lawsuit Against Trump Administration to Reestablish Health Agencies

Posted on by
Reply

On Monday, 20 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration concerning mass shootings and the dismantling of agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The legal action, spearheaded by New York Attorney General Letitia James, asserts that the administration breached numerous laws and circumvented Congressional oversight by attempting to streamline HHS from 28 agencies to 15, while planning to lay off about 20,000 employees.

James stated, “This administration hasn’t streamlined the federal government. They’re blocking it. If you terminate scientists researching infectious diseases, silence medical professionals caring for pregnant individuals, shut down programs supporting firefighters and miners, or hinder children’s development, you’re not improving America’s health. You’re jeopardizing countless lives.”

The restructuring announcement by HHS came in late March as part of the Department of Government Efficiency’s initiative to reduce the federal workforce. The cuts included layoffs of 3,500 employees from the Food and Drug Administration, 2,400 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and 1,200 from the National Institutes of Health.

HHS indicated it will establish a new institution, referred to as the Healthy American regime, to take on some responsibilities formerly held by the agencies being dissolved, including programs focused on mental, environmental, or worker health.

Nonetheless, the lawsuit claims that the recent cuts have “severe, complicated, prolonged, and potentially irreversible” effects. The Attorney General emphasized in a press release that the restructuring impaired HHS’s ability to perform critical functions, disrupting mental health and substance abuse services, weakening responses to HIV/AIDS, and diminishing support for low-income families and individuals with disabilities.

Specifically, the Trump administration has let go of staff responsible for maintaining federal poverty guidelines, which are essential for determining food aid, housing assistance, and Medicaid eligibility, as well as reducing teams managing the low-income housing energy assistance program.

Half of the workforce from the Department of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services—one of the dissolved HHS agencies—has also been terminated. Consequently, the Attorney General reported that national investigations into drug use and health have come to a halt, and the federal team overseeing the 988 suicide and crisis lifeline has vanished.

The CDC has lost multiple labs that track infections, including those focusing on infectious diseases and tobacco control, as mentioned in the release. The team also monitored maternal mortality rates in the U.S. Additionally, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has been disbanded, which previously played a role in screening workers’ health issues related to toxic exposure.

The Trump administration asserts that certain programs, such as the World Trade Center Health Program—which provides screening and treatment for 9/11-related illnesses—and health surveillance initiatives for coal miners will persist under the Healthy American administration. However, many NIOSH employees associated with these programs are facing administrative leave and potential termination by June, as indicated in an internal government memo obtained by NBC News.

The lawsuit filed on Monday demands that HHS dismantle the agency and cease its efforts to restore the vital programs that have been lost.

This lawsuit is not the first to contest the federal government’s downsizing efforts. A coalition of 23 attorneys general previously sued HHS in April over the termination of approximately $11 billion in public health funding. A federal judge temporarily blocked these cuts but has yet to issue a final ruling.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Justice Department Attorneys Advocate for the Dissolution of Google’s Ad Technology.

Posted on by
Reply

On Friday, the Justice Department unveiled a strategy aimed at dismantling Google’s advertising technology empire. This marks the second time within a year that authorities are urging the company to divest parts of its business, potentially altering the landscape of the $2 trillion giant.

These comments were made during a hearing led by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Last month, she determined that Google holds a dominant position in specific segments of the vast advertising system associated with its website. She is now tasked with deciding on a relief measure to address these concerns.

Lawyers from the Justice Department expressed hopes that the government will compel Google to force online publishers to sell their ad space exclusively to them. In the original lawsuit, the government had sought the court’s intervention to make Google enforce its ad technology acquired over the years.

“It’s frankly too risky to allow Google to control 90% of publishers,” stated Julia Tarver Wood, the lead attorney for the government.

In response, Google’s legal team argued that dissolving the company’s advertising division contradicts established legal precedents and threatens privacy and security measures.

The Justice Department’s request represents another blow to Google during an ongoing second hearing discussing its search monopoly in federal courts in Washington. In that instance, the government asked the judge to mandate the sale of Chrome, a widely-used browser, as part of various measures.

Collectively, if approved, these two governmental requests could signify the most significant restructuring of a powerful corporation since the 1980s, when AT&T was split into several companies as a result of an antitrust agreement with the Justice Department.

It remains uncertain whether the judges will impose such a breakup, which many antitrust experts deem the most extreme solution.

In the AD Tech lawsuit initiated in 2023, government attorneys contended that Google dominated the nearly invisible technology responsible for providing advertisements across the internet, conducting auctions for available ad spaces as web pages are loaded.

The government alleged that Google illegally controlled three critical aspects of its advertising system, namely the tools used by websites to display open ad spaces, the instruments that advertisers utilize to purchase these spaces, and the software that facilitates transactions between the two.

Last month, Judge Brinkema concluded that Google had violated the law to maintain its monopoly over publishing tools and the software that links sellers of ad spaces, referred to as Advertising Exchange. However, she noted that the government had not substantiated claims that Google monopolizes the tools used by advertisers.

During a hearing on Friday, Judge Brinkema indicated that she would reconvene in September to explore the relief package.

To address the issues, the Justice Department revealed plans to compel Google to divest its ad exchanges.

The government is also looking to create an open-source version of Google’s publisher advertising tools that manage auctions for available ad spaces, potentially allowing publishers and other ad tech firms to benefit. The hope is that Google will sell tools that support other functionalities for publishers, such as record-keeping.

Karen Dunn, Google’s lead attorney, argued that the proposed plan would not align with existing legal precedents. She further stated that even if the court seriously considers dissolving Google’s advertising technology division, the government’s recommendations are impractical.

There are limited buyers for this technology, with the few that could afford it being “massive tech companies.” Additionally, the essential security and privacy measures currently provided by Google would likely be lost.

“It’s highly probable that what they’re proposing is entirely unfeasible,” she remarked.

Instead, Google proposed that the company focus on amending or discarding certain practices identified by the court as solidifying its dominance, and take steps toward enhancing the transparency of its ad auction bidding system to benefit publishers.

Source: www.nytimes.com

American attorneys demand scientific publications to clarify how they ensure a diverse range of viewpoints.

Posted on by
Reply

This week, US attorneys for the District of Columbia will be reaching out to the editors of a scientific journal for chest doctors. They are implying that the journal may have a partisan bias and are asking a series of questions regarding how publications protect against misinformation, potential influences from competing perspectives, and funders and advertisers.

In a letter from US lawyer Ed Martin, it is stated, “It has come to my attention that magazines and publications like the Chest Journal may declare themselves as partisans in various scientific debates. You have a certain responsibility.”

This letter has sparked concern among revision groups and some scientists who worry about potential threats to academic and scientific freedom.

JT Morris, a senior supervising lawyer at the Foundation for Personal Rights and Expression (Fire), remarked, “It is highly unusual to see a US attorney from Columbia sending letters to publications in Illinois inquiring about editorial practices, especially those of medical journals. It appears to be an act of government officials targeting a publication due to disagreements with its content.”

Fire, a non-profit civil liberty group, criticized Martin for allegedly threatening speakers critical of the government’s efficiency department.

Scientific journals play a crucial role in the advancement of scientific knowledge and provide a platform for researchers to share new discoveries with their peers. Trusted scientific journals undergo a peer review process where submissions are scrutinized by external researchers to ensure accuracy and validity of the content.

The Trump administration has made significant cuts in funding and staffing for federal science and healthcare institutions, raising concerns that research topics may be targeted based on political considerations. These actions have raised suspicion among scientists regarding potential government influence in independent journals.

The District of Columbia’s US Attorney’s Office did not respond to requests from NBC News for comments or additional information regarding the letters they are sending.

The letter was originally shared online by Dr. Eric Reinhart, a Chicago-based clinician, political anthropologist, and social psychiatrist, who described the letter as “blackmail” and labeled it as “fascist tactics.”

Laura Dimasi, a communications specialist at the American College of Chest Physicians, publishers of Chest Journal, confirmed that they have received the letter shared by Reinhart.

Dimasi stated, “The content was posted online without our knowledge. Lawyers are currently reviewing the letter for further action.”

The American College of Chest Physicians is an organization of experts with around 22,000 members specializing in lung, critical care, and sleep medicine. Their website provides more information about the organization.

According to a Publication Website Statement, Chest Journal upholds strict peer review criteria to ensure scientific rigor.

Reinhart explained that he shared the letter online to bring together editors of science journals and the broader scientific community to resist government pressures on publishers.

NBC News reached out to former editors of science journals to inquire if they had ever received similar letters from the Department of Justice regarding their publishing practices, but none reported receiving such letters.

Jeremy Berg, a former editor of the Science Family of Journals, interpreted the letter as a signal of scrutiny.

Michael Eisen, a former editor of the biomedical journal Elife, viewed the letter as part of a broader attack by the Trump administration on academia, universities, and science.

Berg and Eisen expressed uncertainties about the intentions behind the letter, with Eisen highlighting that the Department of Justice’s involvement in editorial matters is unprecedented and raises concerns about undue influence.

There is uncertainty among scientists about the implications of the letter and whether it signifies a broader investigation into scientific journals. NBC News reached out to other scientific publications, and representatives from PLOS, the US Academy of Sciences, and the New England Journal of Medicine reported no similar investigations had taken place.

Representatives of Science, Nature, and Jama, the medical journals of the American Medical Association, did not respond to requests for comments.

Source: www.nbcnews.com