Politics and Federal Antitrust Enforcement: Strangers or Bedfellows?

09/15/17 • 47 min

Some antitrust lawyers often say the federal governmentâs decisions about which mergers to challenge, which monopolists to rein in, and which price-fixers to send to jail are relatively consistent regardless of who occupies the White House. But has federal antitrust enforcement really been entirely apolitical, based on economics, and divorced from other issues such as trade, job creation, and national security? Should it be? A panel of distinguished practitioners and former top government officials from both parties discussed these issues in our Teleforum, which was especially timely given calls by Senate Democrats for increased antitrust enforcement as part of âA Better Dealâ and the increasing use of competition law by foreign governments against U.S. companies. -- Featuring: Jon Leibowitz, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, and Former Chair, Federal Trade Commission; William E. Kovacic, Global Competition Professor of Law and Policy & Director, Competition Law Center, The George Washington University Law School, and Former Chair, Federal Trade Commission; Seth Bloom, President & Founder, Bloom Strategic Counsel PLLC, and Former General Counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Antitrust Subcommittee; and Tad Lipsky, Former Senior Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Justice Department Antitrust Division Official, and Retired Partner, Latham & Watkins. Moderator: Richard M. Steuer, Senior Counsel, Mayer Brown LLP, and Former Chair, American Bar Association Antitrust Section.

Previous Episode

Law Firm Preferences

Major American corporations are pressuring their outside law firms to meet diversity goals both firm-wide and in the legal teams assigned to the company’s work. For example, Facebook announced this year that the law firm teams working on its matters must consist of at least 33 percent women and minorities. This pressure has resulted in the widespread use of race and gender preferences in hiring, promotion, and work assignment decisions by America’s premier law firms. Are these preferences legal under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981? Are they good policy? Curt Levey, a constitutional law attorney who has worked on several affirmative action cases – including the University of Michigan cases (Grutter and Gratz) – joined us to analyze the arguments on both sides of these questions. -- Featuring: Curt Levey, President, The Committee for Justice and Legal Affairs Fellow, FreedomWorks

Next Episode

Janus in the Court

In 1977 in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that public employees, including school teachers, could legally be required to pay a fee if they refuse to join a public-sector union. According to the Detroit Board of Education, the fee was necessary to off-set the costs the union incurred while bargaining on behalf of union and non-union members alike. -- A similar case came to the Supreme Court in 2014, but the Supreme Court did not answer the primary question of Abood, instead ruling that the public employees in question were not actually public employees. Last year, the Supreme Court was left in deadlock in a similar case on the same issue after Justice Scaliaâs passing. -- Janus v. AFSCME, brought by an employee of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services who does not believe he should be legally obliged to join a union, is pending cert in the Supreme Court. William Messenger, Staff Attorney at the National Right to Work Foundation, joined us to discuss the probability of Janus being heard at the Court and what that could mean for the future of public-sector employees and unions. -- Featuring: William L. Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.