SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
WASHINGTON - In response to news that the Department of Justice Antitrust Division has filed a suit against Google for monopolization in digital advertising, specifically asking for a break up of the search giant, the American Economic Liberties Project released the following statement.
"We're thrilled to see the Department of Justice finally demand a break up of Google's advertising monopoly," said Matt Stoller, Director of Research at the American Economic Liberties Project. "As the Justice Department's suit meticulously documents, Google is a buyer, broker, and digital advertising exchange with pervasive conflicts of interest. Google regularly abuses this power, manipulating markets, muscling out any form of competition, and inspiring fear across the commercial landscape. The DOJ's suit, which comes alongside a similar suit from a coalition of state attorneys general and efforts in Congress to bring fairness to digital ad markets, shows clearly that Google's days of unbridled dominance are numbered."
To learn more about Google's monopolization of online advertising markets, read "Addressing Facebook and Google's Harms Through a Regulated Competition Approach."
The American Economic Liberties Project works to ensure America's system of commerce is structured to advance, rather than undermine, economic liberty, fair commerce, and a secure, inclusive democracy. Economic Liberties believes true economic liberty means entrepreneurs and businesses large and small succeed on the merits of their ideas and hard work; commerce empowers consumers, workers, farmers, and engineers instead of subjecting them to discrimination and abuse from financiers and monopolists; foreign trade arrangements support domestic security and democracy; and wealth is broadly distributed to support equitable political power.
"If the Constitution doesn't apply to somebody who's lived in this country for 35 years and is a green-card holder... the Constitution doesn't apply to anybody who's been in this country for less time than him," said an attorney representing the scientist.
A permanent U.S. resident has been held in detention for the last week without apparent explanation and without access to legal representation, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
According to the Post, 40-year-old Tae Heung "Will" Kim was detained by immigration officials at the San Francisco International Airport on July 21 after returning from attending his brother's wedding in Korea. In the week since his detention, he has still not been released despite being a green-card holder who has lived in the United States since the age of five.
Eric Lee, an attorney representing Kim, said he has been unable to contact his client and that Kim's only past brush with the law came back in 2011 when he was ordered to perform community service over a minor marijuana possession charge in Texas.
A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seemed to suggest in a statement to the Post that this past instance of marijuana possession was enough justification to detain and deport Kim.
"If a green-card holder is convicted of a drug offense, violating their status, that person is issued a Notice to Appear and CBP coordinates detention space with ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] ERO [Enforcement and Removal Operations]," they said. "This alien is in ICE custody pending removal proceedings."
Lee told the Post that he reached out to CBP to ask whether his client had protections under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution that guarantee rights such as the right to an attorney. In response, the CBP official simply told Lee, "No."
"If the Constitution doesn't apply to somebody who's lived in this country for 35 years and is a green-card holder—and only left the country for a two-week vacation—that means [the government] is basically arguing that the Constitution doesn't apply to anybody who's been in this country for less time than him," Lee said.
Lee added that it would be particularly uncommon for immigration officials to deport his client based solely on a 2011 marijuana possession charge given that Kim had successfully petitioned to seal the offense from his public record after fulfilling his community service requirements. Because of this, Lee said that Kim's case should easily clear the waiver process that allows officials to overlook past minor offenses that could otherwise be used to justify stripping people of their permanent legal resident status.
Prior to his detention, Kim was pursuing a PhD at Texas A&M University, where he was doing research to help develop a vaccine against Lyme disease.
Immigration enforcement officials under the second Trump administration have been particularly aggressive in trying to deport students who are legally in the United States.
Turkish-born Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk was detained for months earlier this year after she was apparently targeted for writing an editorial in her student newspaper critical of the school's refusal to divest from Israel. Russian-born Harvard University scientist Kseniia Petrova, meanwhile, is currently facing deportation after she was charged with allegedly smuggling frog embryos into the United States.
Judge James Boasberg reportedly raised concerns that the Trump administration "would disregard rulings of federal courts," something the White House has done repeatedly.
The Trump Justice Department on Monday filed a misconduct complaint against a federal judge for warning in early March that the president could spark a "constitutional crisis" by defying court orders—a concern that was swiftly validated.
The complaint against James Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi, who alleged on social media that Boasberg made "improper public comments" about President Donald Trump and his administration.
During a March gathering of the Judicial Conference—the federal judiciary's policymaking body—Boasberg reportedly raised colleagues' fears that "the administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis."
John Roberts, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, "expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize," according to a memo obtained by The Federalist, a right-wing publication.
Days after the Judicial Conference gathering, the Trump administration ignored Boasberg's order to turn around deportation flights, prompting an ACLU attorney to warn, "I think we're getting very close" to a constitutional crisis.
Boasberg, an Obama appointee, later said there was probable cause to hold the Trump administration in contempt of court, concluding that the evidence demonstrated "a willful disregard" for the judge's order.
Boasberg's rulings against the Trump administration in the high-profile deportation case stemming from the president's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act have made the judge a target of the White House and its allies. Trump and some congressional Republicans have demanded that Boasberg be impeached.
Politico reported Monday that the Justice Department's complaint against Boasberg was signed by Chad Mizelle, Bondi's chief of staff.
"Mizelle argued that Boasberg's views expressed at the conference violated the 'presumption of regularity' that courts typically afford to the executive branch," Politico noted. "And the Bondi aide said that the administration has followed all court orders, though several lower courts have found that the administration defied their commands."
A Washington Post analysis published last week estimated that Trump officials have been accused of violating court orders in "a third of the more than 160 lawsuits against the administration."
"The antitrust division has long worked to enforce the law to fight monopoly power, but these attorneys may have been fired for doing just that," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
The Trump Justice Department has removed two of its top antitrust officials amid infighting over the handling of merger enforcement, conflict that came to a head with the DOJ's strange and allegedly corrupt settlement with Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks.
CBS News reported that Roger Alford, principal deputy assistant attorney general, and Bill Rinner, deputy assistant attorney general and head of merger enforcement, were fired for "insubordination" on Monday after being placed on administrative leave last week.
"There has been tension over the handling of investigations into T-Mobile, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and others," the outlet reported, citing unnamed sources.
The Wall Street Journal subsequently reported that the two officials—both deputies of Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, the head of the DOJ's antitrust division—were terminated "after internal disagreements over how much discretion their division should have to police mergers and other business conduct that threatens competition."
News of Alford and Rinner's firings came amid growing scrutiny of the Justice Department's merger settlement with Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks, an agreement that reportedly divided the DOJ internally.
The Capitol Forum reported last week that Justice Department leaders including Chad Mizelle, Attorney General Pam Bondi's chief of staff, "overruled" top antitrust officials who raised concerns about the settlement, Slater among them. HPE hired lobbyists with ties to the Trump White House to push for the deal, which allowed the merger to move forward pending a judge's review of the settlement.
MLex reported over the weekend that Mizelle placed Alford and Ginner on leave last week following "disagreements with higher-ups over a recent merger settlement in HPE-Juniper."
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who serves on the Senate Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights, called the firings "deeply concerning" and demanded answers from the Trump administration.
"The antitrust division has long worked to enforce the law to fight monopoly power, but these attorneys may have been fired for doing just that," Klobuchar wrote on social media.
Faiz Shakir, an adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), wrote in response to the firings that "more and more people [are] taking notice that Trump is using his power to coddle the oligarchs."
"Major cases being settled, rather than fought out in trials," he wrote. "Nothing new being filed to fight major monopolies. Things like non-compete bans and click-to-cancel rules being overturned."
The American Prospect's David Dayen described the internal turmoil at the Trump DOJ as an apparent "effort to hijack antitrust powers on behalf of large corporations."
"This mess is about more than just a wireless back-office infrastructure merger," Dayen wrote, referring to the HPE-Juniper deal. "The antitrust division is actively overseeing cases against Google, Apple, Visa, Live Nation, RealPage, and more."
"If Slater is functionally not in control of the division, then cash and favor-trading will determine the outcomes for some of the biggest companies in the economy," Dayen added. "We're already seeing lenient enforcement at DOJ, with a deal between T-Mobile and UScellular approved. The precedent appears to be set: The right consultants paid the right amount of money can get you a sweetheart deal."