Antitrust Division Update Affirms Continued Efforts of Procurement Collusion Strike Force
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.24.20
As part of its 2020 Update, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division highlighted the ongoing work of its Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF), with Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim specifically noting the work of the PCSF in his personal remarks. Calling the response to the PCSF “overwhelmingly positive”, Delrahim underscored the Division’s priority of enforcing the criminal antitrust laws and stated that the PCSF will be a primary tool for investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust violations related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Update also reiterated that the interagency partnership has been hard at work in the ten months since its launch, identifying and investigating potential antitrust crimes in public procurements. The Update noted that since its inception in November, the PCSF has conducted more than 30 in-person training presentations in 13 states and the District of Columbia, and its work has continued during the pandemic with PCSF attorneys leading over a dozen interactive virtual training programs for 2,000 criminal investigators, data scientists, and procurement officials from 500 federal, state, and local agencies.
Importantly, the Update reported that DOJ has secured additional funding for the PCSF to support its outreach efforts, as well as its investigations, indicating the Antitrust Division has both the interest and the resources to remain focused on these issues for the foreseeable future.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
