New Clarity Emerges on DOJ’s Fraud Enforcement Reorganization
In remarks delivered on June 3, 2026, at the American Conference Institute’s Global Anti-Corruption, Ethics & Compliance Conference in New York City, Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva, the head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Criminal Division, provided the clearest public indication to date of how DOJ intends to divide fraud enforcement responsibilities between the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the newly created National Fraud Enforcement Division (“NFED”).
Under the emerging structure, NFED will focus on government program fraud, i.e., criminal offenses involving public payers and public systems, including taxpayer-funded programs, while the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section will remain focused on private-sector market, consumer, and corporate fraud matters—a traditional strength of the Unit previously known as Market Integrity & Major Frauds, which will remain part of the Criminal Division. Duva further emphasized that the Fraud Section will be focusing on securities and major financial fraud schemes, global fraud, and prediction markets, and is actively looking to further build capacity by hiring talented lawyers.
The remarks largely confirm earlier expectations that DOJ would eventually provide greater clarity regarding the respective roles of the Criminal Division and NFED following NFED’s creation. We examine what Duva’s comments reveal about DOJ’s enforcement priorities, staffing changes, and the implications for future enforcement activity.
DOJ Signals Increasing Scrutiny of Vertically Integrated Healthcare Companies
On May 19, 2026, Nicole Sarrine, Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) for Civil Conduct in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, signaled increasing suspicion of vertically integrated companies in the healthcare sector in remarks delivered at the Transparency Rising 2026 National Forum.[1] (more…)
U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago Announces Reforms For Grand Jury Proceedings
On May 27, 2026, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois announced that it had implemented internal reforms concerning the Office’s practices and disclosures related to grand juries. The announcement followed the recent discovery of extensive prosecutorial misconduct before a grand jury resulting in dismissal with prejudice of the high-profile “Broadview Six” prosecutions. While the details of the reforms remain unclear, the announcement reflects a recognition that change was needed to address past practices and may provide an opportunity for criminal defendants to seek grand jury disclosures and relief if misconduct is uncovered.
DOJ Announces Accelerated Review of FCA Qui Tams Alleging Fraud Against State-Administered Benefits Programs
It is not business as usual at DOJ. In the latest announcement related to the Department’s efforts to fight alleged fraud, on May 27, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate issued a memorandum directing DOJ’s Civil Division and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to accelerate the review of qui tams alleging fraud against federally funded state-administered benefits programs, including programs involving housing, food assistance, medical care, and cash assistance. The memorandum, titled “Accelerating Review and Enhancing Enforcement in Benefits Fraud Matters,” implements President Trump’s March 2026 Executive Order establishing the “Task Force to Eliminate Fraud,” which we reported on here, and which directed the Department to take appropriate action to promote “meritorious” qui tams and to complete investigations sooner, including within the 60-day statutory period.
DOJ and Texas AG Announce First Settlement in National Investigation of Gender-Affirming Care for Minors
On May 15, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Texas Attorney General announced the first publicly disclosed settlement arising from the federal government’s nationwide investigation into gender-affirming care for minors. The resolution with Texas Children’s Hospital reflects a coordinated federal-state enforcement approach grounded in False Claims Act (“FCA”) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) theories, alongside significant non-monetary remedies extending beyond traditional healthcare fraud settlements. In addition to a substantial monetary payment, the agreements impose operational, clinical, and governance-related obligations that may signal how enforcement authorities intend to pursue similar matters going forward.
This blog post examines the settlement terms, the broader federal policy and enforcement framework underlying the investigation, and the implications for healthcare providers and life sciences companies navigating areas of aligned federal and state enforcement focus. Click to read more about the resolution and what it may signal for future DOJ and state attorney general enforcement activity.
Back Before the Fifth Circuit: DOJ Appeals Another FCPA Acquittal
On May 8, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice appealed Judge Kenneth Hoyt’s post-verdict acquittal in the FCPA prosecution of Ramón Alexandro Rovirosa Martínez, setting up what could become a significant Fifth Circuit decision on both double jeopardy and the use of translated foreign language evidence in federal criminal trials.
Although a Houston jury convicted Rovirosa in December 2025 on conspiracy and substantive FCPA charges tied to alleged bribery of officials at Mexico’s state-owned oil company, Pemex, Judge Hoyt later vacated the convictions, concluding that the Government’s reliance on certified English translations of Spanish language communications violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause because the translators themselves did not testify.
The appeal raises potentially consequential questions about whether post-verdict acquittals can be reviewed without violating double jeopardy protections, and whether certified translations of foreign language communications are “testimonial” statements requiring live confrontation. This blog post explores those issues and places the appeal in the broader context of the Fifth Circuit’s continuing scrutiny of major FCPA decisions.
Supreme Court’s First Choice Decision May Expand Federal Court Options to Recipients of State Attorney General CIDs
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport may create a new strategic consideration for recipients of state attorney general civil investigative demands (CIDs). In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that a nonprofit could pursue a Section 1983 challenge to a New Jersey Attorney General subpoena in federal court based on alleged First Amendment associational harms arising from compelled donor disclosure.
Although the Court emphasized the narrow nature of its holding, the decision potentially opens the door to federal court challenges where state attorney general CIDs implicate donor anonymity, expressive association, advocacy activities, or other constitutional interests. The ruling also reflects the Court’s continued willingness to recognize Article III standing based on alleged chilling effects tied to First Amendment rights.
Our latest post examines the decision, the arguments raised by a coalition of state attorneys general, and what the ruling may mean for companies, nonprofits, trade associations, and other recipients of state attorney general investigative demands.
Tariff Enforcement at the Forefront: Importer Agrees to Pay $549.5 million in Largest-Ever Trade-Related False Claims Act Settlement
On May 12, 2026, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a $549.5 million settlement with Perfectus Aluminum Acquisitions LLC and four affiliated companies to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by evading customs duties. This settlement is the largest trade-related settlement under the FCA.
The action was initiated by qui tam cases brought by individuals who worked for U.S.-based competitors and the Aluminum Extrusion Counsel and ultimately coordinated through the DOJ’s Trade Fraud Task Force, which involved cooperation between DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security. This case highlights the increasing use of the FCA to hold importers liable for the underpayment of customs duties, the Administration’s commitment to enforcing U.S. customs laws, and the potential for competitors and former employees to harness the FCA to motivate federal investigations into allegations of trade fraud.
This post examines the settlement and discusses its implications for importers, manufacturers, and other companies facing customs and trade enforcement risk.
