Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Today the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice prevailed in its second monopolization case against Google. In United States et al. v. Google, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that Google violated antitrust law by monopolizing open-web digital advertising markets. According to the Court, Google “harmed Google’s publishing customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web.”   

“This is a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolizing the digital public square,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “This Department of Justice will continue taking bold legal action to protect the American people from encroachments on free speech and free markets by tech companies.”

“The Court’s ruling is clear: Google is a monopolist and has abused its monopoly power,” said Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Google’s unlawful dominance allows them to censor and even deplatform American voices. And at the same time, Google destroyed and hid information that exposed its illegal conduct. Today’s opinion confirms Google’s controlling hand over online advertising and, increasingly, the internet itself. I am extraordinarily proud of the dedicated public servants whose tireless efforts led to today’s decision.”

Today’s decision follows a 15-day trial in September 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In January 2023, the Justice Department, along with Attorneys General of several states and the Commonwealth of Virginia, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Google for monopolizing key digital advertising technologies, referred to as the “ad tech stack,” that website publishers depend on to buy and sell ads that reach millions of customers. As alleged in the complaint, through a series of acquisitions and anticompetitive auction manipulation, Google subverted competition for over 15 years. As a result of Google’s anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct, its ad tech competitors were neutralized or eliminated.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Abdullah Haji Zada, 18, a native and citizen of Afghanistan and U.S. lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty today to a criminal information charging him with knowingly receiving, attempting to receive, and conspiring to receive a firearm and ammunition to be used to commit a federal crime of terrorism.

According to court documents, Zada and a co-conspirator received two AK-47-style rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition, knowing that the firearms and ammunition would be used in connection with a terrorist attack on Election Day in November 2024 on behalf the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist organization. Zada was arrested with co-conspirator Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, 27, also a citizen of Afghanistan, in October 2024.

Zada, who was 17 at the time of his arrest, entered his guilty plea as an adult and will be sentenced as an adult. At sentencing, Zada faces a maximum penalty of 15 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine.

As part of the plea agreement, Zada stipulated to the entry of a judicial order of removal from the United States to Afghanistan following his term of incarceration. Zada acknowledged that the order of removal would terminate his lawful permanent resident status. Zada also waived his right to appeal the conviction except in limited circumstances or seek any form of appeal or relief from his removal and deportation, including but not limited to, seeking asylum.

Tawhedi is currently awaiting trial for conspiring and attempting to provide material support to ISIS, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, and receiving, attempting to receive, or conspiring to receive a firearm to be used to commit a felony or a federal crime of terrorism, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison, if convicted. An indictment is merely an allegation and Tawhedi is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Sue J. Bai, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, U.S. Attorney Robert J. Troester for the Western District of Oklahoma, and Assistant Director David J. Scott of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division made the announcement.

The FBI Oklahoma City Field Office’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, which includes Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Marshals Service, Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, the Edmond Police Department, the Moore Police Department, the Oklahoma City Police Department, the Oklahoma City Community College Police Department, and the Oklahoma City University Police Department, is investigating the case.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jessica L. Perry and Matt Dillon for the Western District of Oklahoma, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Everett McMillian and Trial Attorney Jennifer Levy of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section are prosecuting the case.

Source: United States Department of Justice 2

Unleashing American Energy was one of President Donald J. Trump’s first actions, and it includes infrastructure like pipelines and oil and gas export facilities. Recently, the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) secured four wins in court that underpin the intentions of the president’s executive order.

The Dakota Access Pipeline crosses Lake Oahe in North Dakota. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently preparing a supplemental environmental impact statement which the District Court for the District of Columbia ordered for the pipeline’s easement. Last year, the Corps was sued again to shut down the pipeline while they work on that statement, but ENRD last month was granted its motion to dismiss that lawsuit.

In the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, a Tennessee pipeline company was essentially allowed to go ahead and build a pipeline to deliver natural gas to the Tennessee Valley Authority for a new gas power plant. The court denied a petition for review of the Corp’s permit to the company and upheld its reliance on Tennessee’s certification of the project under the Clean Water Act’s Section 401.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a published decision affirming the Corps decision to issue a permit for a proposed expansion of an oil-export facility in Texas. The court held that the Corps thoroughly analyzed the effects of issuing the permit and properly assessed the project’s scope.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs’ petition for review of a Department of Energy (DOE) action to authorize exporting liquefied natural gas from a proposed terminal on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska. The gas is to come from Alaska’s north slope and would be transported to the terminal via a proposed pipeline across the state. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had previously authorized where the project’s facilities would be, and DOE authorized and reaffirmed exporting the gas. This development will help unleash Alaska’s extraordinary resource potential, in keeping with the administration’s directive.