Commercial Litigation Update

This post’s title comes from the 1960s doo-wop hit “Stay,” by Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs. I recognize that most practicing lawyers today are too young to know of this classic.

However, its opening line echoes in yet another action of the U.S. Supreme Court, today’s order in Noem v. Doe, granting a stay (for at least a bit longer) of a district court order that had blocked the deportation of more than a half million immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

Those persons were in the United States under parole programs that gave them temporary legal status. Today, the Court is allowing the Department of Homeland Security to deprive those persons of that protection and to subject them to deportation, notwithstanding that ongoing legal proceedings could lead to a restoration of the parole programs at issue.

In Part One of this series, we discussed the May 12, 2025, U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division’s new guidance memo on white-collar enforcement priorities in the Trump 2.0 Administration entitled “Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime.” In this new DOJ memo, and in an accompanying speech by Matthew R. Galeotti, the Trump Administration’s appointed Head of the Criminal Division, the DOJ announced its priorities and areas of focus for white collar enforcement.

In Part Two of this series, we address the DOJ’s changes made the same day to its Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Disclosure Policy (“the CEP”), contained within the Justice Manual. The revised CEP provides additional benefits to companies that self-disclose and cooperate. In his May 12^th speech, Galeotti asserted that prior versions of the CEP were “unwieldy and hard to navigate” and noted that the DOJ seeks to be “as transparent as [it] can to companies and their counsel about what to expect under [DOJ’s] policies.” As part of this effort to increase transparency, the revised CEP includes a flowchart of potential outcomes should a company decide to make a voluntary self-disclosure as well as definitions of key terms such as “Voluntary Self-Disclosure,” “Full Cooperation,” “Timely and Appropriate Remediation” and “Providing Cooperation Credit.”

On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division released a new guidance memo on white-collar enforcement priorities in the Trump Administration entitled “Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime.” In this memo, and the accompanying speech by Matthew R. Galeotti, the Trump  Administration’s appointed Head of the Criminal Division, the DOJ reiterated its previously stated commitment to prosecuting illegal immigration, drug cartels, and transnational criminal organizations. For the first time in the new Administration, however, the DOJ clearly articulated new white-collar enforcement priorities, directing Criminal Division white-collar prosecutors to follow three core tenets: focus, fairness, and efficiency. As detailed below, the new memo sets forth the following three priorities:

1. Focus on High-Impact Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Harming Vulnerable Taxpayers

It should be no surprise that the administration is targeting actors that profit through “waste, fraud, and abuse.” The memo sets clear priorities for its prosecutors to investigate, listing as the #1 priority health care fraud and federal program and procurement fraud.  The memo goes on to provide a top 10 list of “high-impact areas”, with “trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion” as #2.  Heavy focus is given to fraud perpetrated by foreign actors and conduct threatening U.S. national security. Also listed is fraud victimizing U.S. investors, including elder fraud and Ponzi schemes. Appearing as #8 on the list is violations of the Controlled Substances Act and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, including the creation of counterfeit pills laced with fentanyl and the “unlawful distribution of opioids by medical professionals and companies.”

New episode of our video podcast, Speaking of Litigation: When businesses face regulatory uncertainty, how can they effectively adapt, respond, and, if necessary, challenge government action?

In this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Mike Brodlieb, Jim Flynn, Jimmy Oh, and Jack Wenik navigate the complexities of regulatory action and inaction. The conversation dives into the changing administrative landscape and covers how businesses can strategize to challenge regulations, the pros and cons of litigation, and the critical importance of aligning legal goals with practical business objectives.

The panelists also explore how agencies’ evolving processes create both challenges and opportunities, including how internal agency relationships and unexpected legal arguments can shape outcomes. From assembling the right legal team to balancing risk and reward in high-stakes scenarios, they discuss real-world tactics for crafting solutions that address uncertainty while keeping business interests front and center.

Gain insight into how legal professionals are managing the intricate interplay between government regulation, litigation strategies, and client priorities in today’s dynamic environment.

While much attention has been given to the Trump Administration’s early federal policy objectives to increase immigration enforcement, clients should also be aware of similar increased enforcement policies at the state level.

Last month, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed into law a bill passed by the state legislature during a recent special legislative session. The new Tennessee law attempts to strengthen immigration enforcement in Tennessee with the following measures:

1. Creates a Centralized Immigration Enforcement Division at the state level, to be led by a Chief Immigration Enforcement Officer (“CIEO”) appointed by the Governor. The CIEO will coordinate directly with the Trump Administration on federal immigration policies and implementation.

The U.S. Supreme Court resolved more textual battles today, one in a fully argued case, the other on procedural motions.

The combinations of Justices continue to defy stereotypes, and at least one of those combinations, led by the Chief Justice, constitutes a majority that is willing to stand up to presidential assertions of expansive powers.