New Op-ed by WLF Chairman on “Pro-Business” High Court

The Washington Examiner today published an opinion piece by WLF Chaiman Daniel J. Popeo entitled “What ‘Pro Business’ Supreme Court.” 

He writes, “Over the past several months, some politicians and activists have intensified their campaign to label the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts’ leadership as reflexively ‘pro-business.’  A close examination of these arguments reveals the claim to be little more than an inside-the-Beltway urban legend.  But even more troubling than the misleading facts being presented is the broader, underlying message activists want to implant in the public’s mind.  They want Americans to see the judiciary as a political body whose business verdicts are biased and harmful to our well-being.”  Click here to read the rest.

Is an Antitrust Violation a “Crime Involving Moral Turpitude”? DOJ Thinks So

Guest Commentary

Eric Grannon, Partner, White & Case LLP; Washington Legal Foundation Legal Policy Advisory Board Member

A troubling trend has developed in white-collar crime cases where prosecutors either (i) use leverage outside of the case—that is, not based on the merits of the evidence—to secure a conviction, or (ii) stretch the traditional elements of criminal law to secure a conviction.  One breathtaking example of both tactics is the so-called “Memorandum of Understanding” between the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (or what is now known as ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security).  In this Memorandum of Understanding (or “MoU”) the government says that it:  “Considers criminal violations of the Sherman Act . . . to be crimes involving moral turpitude, which may subject an alien to exclusion or deportation from the United States.”

Conspicuously, the overwhelming majority of DOJ antitrust convictions are obtained against non-U.S. executives—and every single one of these convictions has been by plea agreement rather than trial.  Why?  Because if the defendant pleads guilty, the government agrees to waive application of the MoU, so the person can travel freely to the United States after serving his sentence.  Continue reading “Is an Antitrust Violation a “Crime Involving Moral Turpitude”? DOJ Thinks So”