Justice Dept. Resumes Bribery Prosecutions
Of Foreign Business that Hurts U.S. Interests

     The Justice Department plans to resume prosecuting cases under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act but with a different strategy than before President Donald Trump was elected.
     The federal law authorizes criminal and civil prosecution of anyone who tries to bribe foreign government officials to win a business advantage in international transactions.
     The new strategy announced last week will focus Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement primarily against misconduct that hurts American businesses’ ability to compete internationally.
     Trump used an executive order to suspend the previous broad-based anti-bribery enforcement while arguing that the prosecutions could inhibit American business abroad.
     When Congress enacted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977, some American businessmen called it unrealistic. They said “gifts” of money or property to foreign officials who help their businesses were considered a fringe benefit of their jobs.
     Enforcement was sporadic in the first few years but became commonplace during the Biden administration.
     Trump referred to the pace of Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement actions in his Feb. 10 executive order.
     It said that “over-expansive and unpredictable FCPA enforcement against American citizens and businesses — by our own government — for routine business practices in other nations not only wastes limited prosecutorial resources that could be dedicated to preserving American freedoms, but actively harms American economic competitiveness and, therefore, national security.”
     Since order 14209 was announced, the Justice Department closed about half its open foreign bribery investigations. They included investigations of medical device maker Stryker and aerospace manufacturer Bombardier.
     The revised enforcement strategy was announced by Todd Blanche, the Justice Department’s deputy attorney general, in a policy statement.
     “We are shifting prosecutorial resources toward cases that clearly implicate U.S. national security and economic competitiveness, rather than penalizing legitimate business operations abroad,” the statement said.
     The new enforcement efforts will be directed at financial transactions of drug cartels, misconduct that deprives American companies of fair access to compete, and corrupt practices intended to interfere with U.S. national security and key infrastructure, according to the Justice Department.
     The Justice Department announcement fell under criticism from some international business and public policy leaders. They said it demonstrates a dangerous retreat from good ethics that could backfire by undermining foreign policy.
     Rick Claypool, a research director for consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement, “American corporations that engage in criminal bribery schemes abroad will no longer be prosecuted. That’s the bottom line of the new Trump policy on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.”
     A Justice Department official tried to ease concerns that the new Foreign Corrupt Practices Act policy would unleash international business misconduct.
     Speaking last week at a meeting in New York of the American Conference Institute, Matthew R. Galeotti, the head of the department’s criminal division, said federal prosecutors have not “and will not close meritorious investigations or dismiss meritorious cases” involving foreign bribery and other white-collar crimes.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Proud Boys Sue Justice Dept. for $100 Million
Over Jan. 6 Capitol Insurrection Prosecutions

     Five leaders of the Proud Boys are suing the U.S. government over what they describe as politically-motivated prosecutions for their participation in the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol.
     Each of them was convicted on criminal charges for trying to violently overturn former President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election.
     President Donald Trump pardoned them or commuted their sentences earlier this year. 
     Now they want compensation.
     They claim $100 million apiece in damages for what their lawsuit says was a Justice Department effort "to punish and oppress political allies" of Trump.
     “Through the use of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, violations of attorney-client privilege, and placing spies to report on trial strategy, the government got its fondest wish of imprisoning the J6 Defendants, the modern equivalent of placing one’s enemies' heads on a spike outside the town wall as a warning to any who would think to challenge the status quo,” says the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Orlando, Fla.
     The lawsuit was filed against the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department by Enrique Tarrio, the former national leader of the far-right Proud Boys group, along with fellow Proud Boys members Zachary Rehl, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs and Dominic Pezzola.
     Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years in prison on multiple charges for his role in organizing the Jan. 6 insurrection. The other four were convicted of seditious conspiracy and given less but also lengthy prison terms.
     Part of the damages claim alleges their homes were raided by the FBI without probable cause to believe they committed crimes, their attorneys were spied on as they prepared a defense and they were held in solitary confinement beyond anything that could be justified under the law.
     Their legal claims face big obstacles, both political and based on federal court precedents.
     They claim damages similar to many of the roughly 1,500 other insurrectionists the Justice Department has arrested. A ruling for Tarrio and his co-defendants could open the doors for all others to sue.
     President Donald Trump referred to the rioters who were arrested as “hostages” in his order in January that granted them pardons or sentence commutations.
     “This proclamation ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years and begins a process of national reconciliation,” the order said.
     Whether Trump’s admission of a “grave national injustice” is enough evidence for the Proud Boys to wage a successful lawsuit is a different question.
     Their lawsuit is based in part on a Bivens claim, which refers to a 1971 Supreme Court ruling that established the right of individuals to sue federal officials for constitutional rights violations.
     The Supreme Court has upheld the ruling only three times since 1971. Other times, the court said Congress must determine whether the plaintiffs have a right to compensation.
     Another part of the lawsuit claims a right to compensation for malicious prosecution under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The law authorizes private citizens to sue the U.S. government for damages or injuries wrongfully inflicted by federal officials.
     In their defense, government officials have typically claimed they cannot be sued successfully because of the qualified immunity from liability granted under federal law. The only way to win a lawsuit despite the qualified immunity doctrine is to prove government officials violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”
     The doctrine generally has been upheld by federal courts, most recently in the 2022 case of a lawsuit against the city of Parma, Ohio, by a man who was prosecuted after posting a parody of the local police on Facebook.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Associated Press Access to White House
In Doubt After Appeals Court Ruling

     President Donald Trump’s ban on the Associated Press attending White House media events remains in effect after an appellate court ruling this month.
     Trump shut out the Associated Press after it refused to go along with the president’s demand that media organizations refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. He ordered the name change Jan. 7 under an executive order titled “Restoring names that honor American greatness.”
     The Associated Press sued in federal court to regain access to the White House media pool.
     The Associated Press argued that free speech and freedom of the press guarantees under the First Amendment mean it could not be excluded as an act of retaliation.
     The media organization said its worldwide audience would not willingly accept a name change that appeals only to the Trump administration. It also said it would be willing to acknowledge Trump’s suggested name change in its stylebook but that its news reports would continue to refer to the Gulf of Mexico.
     A U.S. District Court judge in Washington, D.C., ruled in favor of the Associated Press. The federal judge ordered that Associated Press reporters be granted access to the White House media pool that they have held for decades.
     The Justice Department appealed, arguing that media pool access was discretionary for the Trump administration.
     “The Constitution does not prohibit the President from considering a journalist’s prior coverage in evaluating how much access he will grant that journalist,” Justice Department attorneys argued in a court filing.
     The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely agreed with the Justice Department. It issued a preliminary injunction to prevent Associated Press access but said that continuing the injunction would depend on a further appeal.
     A further appeal would most likely mean the U.S. Supreme Court.
     The Circuit Court’s opinion said White House press events “are not First Amendment fora open for private speech and discussion. The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.”
     Restricting access to only media members approved by the White House was part of “the President’s independence and control over his private workspaces,” the court’s ruling said.
     For decades, members of the White House press pool were chosen by the White House Correspondents’ Association. They were given access to various events, such as in the Oval Office, the East Room and aboard Air Force One.
     Membership was typically granted only to major media organizations. The Associated Press was allotted one reporter and one photographer.
     On February 25, the White House announced it would select journalists for participation in press pool events, instead of deferring to choices of the Correspondents’ Association. The result was greater access for smaller news outlets but fewer major media.
     The reduced access fell hardest on media organizations that criticized Trump or his administration.
     Bloomberg News, which criticized Trump’s Jan. 7 executive order, has been restricted from some White House events.
     Executive Order 14172 also set standards for other name changes, such as reverting from calling the Alaska mountain Denali to Mount McKinley. Popular opinion polls show most Americans disagree with the name changes.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Police Officers Sue to Force Memorial
For Jan. 6 Defenders of the Capitol

     Two police officers who tried to hold back rioters during the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection in Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit last week seeking a court order requiring that a plaque be hung in the Capitol honoring police who protected lawmakers and their staff. 
     The lawsuit cites a 2022 law approved by Congress requiring that the plaque be installed no later than March 2023.
     The plaque is completed but it has been held in storage for more than a year amid resistance from Republicans.
     The lawsuit blames House Speaker MIke Johnson, R-La., for the delay. He has declined to answer media inquiries about why he is blocking installation of the plaque.
     The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., calls the Architect of the Capitol’s noncompliance with the planned plaque installation on the west front of the Capitol a violation of the law by refusing to carry out the will of Congress. It also says the refusal violates the constitutional rights to equal protection of police officers who tried to stop the mob.
     More than 100 of them were injured during the riot.
     The lawsuit is filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., by Harry Dunn, a former U.S. Capitol police officer, and Daniel Hodges, a Metropolitan Police Department officer.
     Dunn protected injured officers during the riot. Hodges said he was kicked in the chest and that someone tried to gouge out his eyes.
     Any modifications to the Capitol are supposed to be carried out by the Architect of the Capitol, who follows directions from the Speaker of the House. 
     Architect of the Capitol Thomas Austin told a House subcommittee in April that he had not received authorization from the Speaker of the House for any modifications.
     “We have not received final instructions to install the plaque,” Austin said.
     The officers’ lawsuit says partisan politics explains why police who protected the Capitol are not being honored.
     “After the law was passed, the politics around January 6, 2021, changed, and many politicians who once spoke plainly about the dangers of that day began to rewrite its history, and minimize the terror of the attack,” the lawsuit says. “Four years since Congress passed the law, and three years since the deadline for its installation has lapsed, the memorial has not been put up.”
     Dunn says he felt a need to increase security at his home because of hatred directed at him. His lawsuit says he finds it “impossible” to continue protecting members of Congress “whose lives he helped save but who, in part, now refuse to recognize his service.”
     Hodges claims to suffer from depression and anxiety. 
     “By refusing to follow the law and honor officers as it is required to do, Congress encourages this rewriting of history,” their lawsuit says. “It suggests that the officers are not worthy of being recognized, because Congress refuses to recognize them.”
     The lawsuit is filed as Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges v. Architect of the Capitol in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:25-cv-01844.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Senate Aviation Bill Seeks to Stop
Helicopter-Airline Collisions Like in D.C.

     A Senate committee that oversees aviation safety is considering legislation intended to prevent the kinds of collisions that killed 67 people at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in January.
     The collision resulted from an American Airlines regional jet slamming into an Army Black Hawk helicopter that was flying higher than its authorized altitude.
     The bill, S. 1985, introduced this month by seven Democratic senators would require the Federal Aviation Administration to review helicopter and airline operations near major airports with a potential for limiting the helicopter flights.
     It also would require use of advanced collision warning technology and compel new FAA investigations after fatal passenger airline accidents.
     In hearings earlier this year, members of Congress expressed outrage about the number of near-misses at Reagan Airport that were overlooked without FAA regulatory intervention.
     Senator Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said the collision “exposed critical gaps in aviation safety oversight.”
     Cantwell said S. 1985 “closes dangerous loopholes that allowed aircraft to operate without essential safety technology, mandates modern surveillance systems that enhance pilot awareness of nearby aircraft, and ensures the FAA finally acts on the data instead of ignoring it.”
     The safety technology she mentioned refers to ADS-B, a tracking system that uses transponders to give air traffic controllers detailed information about the altitude, speed and location of nearby aircraft. Its automated alarms warn of aircraft approaching too closely.
     The Army Black Hawk helicopter was equipped with ADS-B but it was not operating during the routine training mission when it collided with the American Airlines jet.
     Part of the evidence discussed in congressional hearings was a National Transportation Safety Board report released in March.
     It said that since 2021, there were more than 15,200 incidents of commercial airplanes and helicopters at Reagan Airport passing within one mile of lateral separation and less than 400 feet of vertical separation. Eighty-five of the incidents were classified by the FAA as close calls.
     The International Civil Aviation Organization sets global standards for vertical separation for commercial aircraft, typically requiring a minimum of 1,000 feet.
     Families of the people killed in the Jan. 29 collision said in a statement that the Senate bill “marks a meaningful step forward in aviation safety.”
     They are suing the FAA and the Army in lawsuits claiming hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.​