Insights

Washington, D.C. – July 17, 2023: Crowell & Moring hosted its 24thannual George Bailey Public Service Awards ceremony. Named after the hero of the classic movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life,” these awards recognize the firm’s lawyers and staff who have made a substantial impact on the lives of others.

Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater of the Department of Justice, and Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Mark Meador of the Federal Trade Commission, have each looked to the history of conservative voices to chart a path forward for antitrust enforcement in the second Trump Administration. Within the last three weeks, AAG Slater delivered remarks to the University of Notre Dame Law School, Chairman Ferguson delivered remarks at the International Competition Network Annual Conference, and Commissioner Meador shared his policy aims in an FTC paper and a speech to George Washington University. The enforcers emphasized the need for robust antitrust enforcement to break private monopolies and other anticompetitive arrangements. These enforcers appear to align on priorities, though differing slightly in methods, grounding their rationale in what they describe as traditional conservative values, while at the same time distancing themselves from previous Republican administrations which have emphasized anti-cartel policies and an otherwise preference for limited intervention in markets.

On April 17, 2025, Arkansas recently became the first state to enact broad restrictions on pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) owning retail pharmacies within the state.

The Supreme Court has shown great interest in personal jurisdiction issues of late. Last term, in Mallory, the Court upheld a state corporate registration law that requires companies to consent to personal jurisdiction as a condition to conducting business in the state.[1] In 2021, in Ford, the Court held that it is not a violation of due process for a state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant even though the defendant’s contacts with the state are not the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.[2]