January 29, 2022

News

News Network

Presentation of the Sherman Award to the Honorable Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg

15 min read
<div>Welcome to the Conference Center of the historic Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building. It is an honor to present the Sherman award to Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg this afternoon. We’re joined today by Judge Ginsburg’s wife Deecy and many of Judge Ginsburg’s colleagues and admirers. We’re particularly honored by the presence of Justice Gorsuch, a champion of liberty, who in his short time on the Supreme Court has reconfirmed his reputation for brilliance, clarity of thought and expression, and for holding the government to its word, whether in the statutes that it enacts or the treaties that it makes. I also welcome the distinguished guests who are with us virtually.</div>

Welcome to the Conference Center of the historic Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building. It is an honor to present the Sherman award to Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg this afternoon. We’re joined today by Judge Ginsburg’s wife Deecy and many of Judge Ginsburg’s colleagues and admirers. We’re particularly honored by the presence of Justice Gorsuch, a champion of liberty, who in his short time on the Supreme Court has reconfirmed his reputation for brilliance, clarity of thought and expression, and for holding the government to its word, whether in the statutes that it enacts or the treaties that it makes. I also welcome the distinguished guests who are with us virtually.

The Sherman award is the Department of Justice’s highest antitrust honor. It is named for Senator John Sherman, who authored our nation’s first antitrust law—the Sherman Act—in 1890. Today we honor Judge Ginsburg’s lifetime contributions to antitrust law and economic liberty. I can think of no more deserving recipient for the Sherman Award than Judge Ginsburg. His career in public service and his scholarship have shaped the way that antitrust law is understood and practiced. The ceremony today recognizes Judge Ginsburg’s rightful place among the giants of antitrust law who have previously been given this honor. They include: Judge Diane Wood, AAG James Rill, Chairman Robert Pitofsky, Professor Herbert Hovenkamp, Judge Robert Bork, Judge Richard Posner, and Professor Phillip Areeda.

The Antitrust Division has a personal connection to Judge Ginsburg. Before Judge Ginsburg was appointed to the DC Circuit in 1986, he was the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. This was a critical time in the Division’s history. At the beginning of 1984, pursuant to a consent decree, the Bell System was broken up into the seven “Baby Bells.” Judge Ginsburg had to oversee the enforcement of the consent decree, and by all accounts he discharged his duties admirably.

Judge Ginsburg was central to another of the most significant moments in modern antitrust history. He was part of the en banc D.C. Circuit that issued the United States v. Microsoft decision—arguably the most important and influential Section 2 decision of the twenty-first century. The Microsoft decision also reflects a hallmark of Judge Ginsburg’s work —his advocacy for intellectual property rights. Judge Ginsburg has advanced the view that strong IP rights ensure incentives to compete dynamically on innovative solutions. In Microsoft, the DC Circuit declined to find that Microsoft violated § 2 by refusing to allow computer manufacturers to alter the Windows desktop interface. As the per curiam opinion put it, “a shell that automatically prevents the Windows desktop from ever being seen by the user is a drastic alteration of Microsoft’s copyrighted work, and outweighs the marginal anticompetitive effect of prohibiting the OEMs from substituting a different interface automatically upon completion of the initial boot process.”

Judge Ginsburg’s antitrust accomplishments, however, extend far beyond his career in the federal government. He is one of the foremost scholars of antitrust law. His scholarly work has shaped my thinking in numerous ways. I’ll give a few examples. Judge Ginsburg co-authored an important study comparing the efficacy of generalist courts with specialist courts when the courts have to decide competition law case. Judge Ginsburg’s nuanced study notes that specialist judges have important advantages over generalist judges—after all, antitrust law is complex and judges deciding hard antitrust cases have to understand both economics and antitrust doctrine. But Judge Ginsburg also notes that there are particular disadvantages associated with specialist courts, such as the risk of regulatory capture, where a powerful interest group may advocate for judges who serve its interests to be appointed to the court.

I found this article to be convincing and valuable—so much so that I’m now an advocate of the model of specialist antitrust tribunals that Judge Ginsburg suggested. He noted in the article that clever institutional design can ameliorate some of the disadvantages of specialist antitrust courts, and I agree. I support an Article III Court, into which generalist Article III judges with an interest in antitrust law could rotate for a number of years. Industry players wouldn’t play a role in selecting the judges most favorable to them, because the judiciary itself, through the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, would decide who serves on the court. And judges would bring their generalist experience with them and acquire specialist training while serving on an Article III court of competition law.

Judge Ginsburg has also written perceptively about the emerging field of behavioral economics and its implications for antitrust law.[3] In short, he has been skeptical of behavioral economics. Price theory, in Judge Ginsburg’s view, made antitrust doctrine rational and predictable and the accompanying consumer welfare criterion gave courts clear standards according to which to decide cases. Behavioral economics is more open-ended and threatens to destabilize this area of law. Since the Supreme Court is searching for overarching principles to guide lower courts faced with antitrust cases, Judge Ginsburg argues that behavioral economics is unlikely to be useful to the Supreme Court.

It’s hard to disagree with Judge Ginsburg’s contention that price theory’s dominant place in antitrust doctrine is a hard-won victory for doctrinal rationality and that behavioral economics needs to be embraced only cautiously. I am, perhaps, a bit more hopeful that further research in behavioral economics can help identify irrational firm behavior and help antitrust law adjust. Judge Ginsburg’s work is an important reminder that behavioral economics cannot displace price theory as the driver of antitrust doctrine, and whatever doctrine is advanced in the future, antitrust laws should continue to be based on rational, neutral principles, just like those Judge Ginsburg has helped usher in over the years. 

Judge Ginsburg has also made antitrust law more rational and predictable through his work at the Jevons Institute for Competition Law and Economics at University College London. As a member of the Advisory Board of the Jevons Institute, Judge Ginsburg has fostered dialogue between U.S. and European practitioners of competition law. He gave an address about American antitrust law at the inaugural Jevons Antitrust Forum in 2005. His talk was a characteristically incisive empirical analysis of private antitrust actions showing that the Supreme Court’s Sylvania decision had caused a decrease in private lawsuits beginning in the late 1970’s. By starting the Antitrust Forum off on that strong note, Judge Ginsburg encouraged American and European competition authorities and judges to learn from each other and converge on substantive and procedural principles. He continues to exercise leadership in international competition enforcement, not only through the Jevons institute, but also through his work training international jurists through the Global Antitrust Institute at the Antonin Scalia Law School.        

Judge Ginsburg is also a devoted teacher. As many of you know, he has held a great number of distinguished academic positions since beginning his professional career as a professor at Harvard Law School. He is currently teaching at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, and before that he was Distinguished Professor at NYU. His former clerks affectionately describe their time in his chambers as an educational crucible that honed their thinking and writing, preparing them to succeed in their legal careers.

More recently, Judge Ginsburg has taken his teaching role beyond the walls of the academy. He performed a valuable service by creating the fantastic PBS documentary A More or Less Perfect Union, which brought Judge Ginsburg’s insights about the wisdom of the Framers’ constitutional design to a wide audience. I strongly recommend the documentary: it’s a fascinating dialogue with judges, historians, and constitutional scholars. It shows how our framers protected liberty by creating a government of limited powers, and how, unfortunately, federal power has expanded over time, in ways that limit personal and economic freedom.

Any one of these accomplishments would make Judge Ginsburg a deserving candidate for the Sherman Award. His untiring work in all these areas has led to several careers’ worth of accomplishments. And we all are the beneficiaries of Judge Ginsburg’s brilliance, hard work, and dedication to public service. It is with gratitude and profound respect that I present the Sherman Award to Judge Ginsburg.

News Network

  • Native New Yorker convicted in human transporting conspiracy
    In Justice News
    A 53-year-old man has [Read More…]
  • Syria Sanctions Designations on the Anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 2254
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with UN Special Coordinator Wennesland
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Update to Secretary Pompeo’s Travel to Asia
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Morgan Ortagus, [Read More…]
  • National Health Care Fraud Enforcement Action Results in Charges Involving over $1.4 Billion in Alleged Losses
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice announced today criminal charges against 138 defendants, including 42 doctors, nurses, and other licensed medical professionals, in 31 federal districts across the United States for their alleged participation in various health care fraud schemes that resulted in approximately $1.4 billion in alleged losses.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken And Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio Before Their Meeting
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • On the Passing of King Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ned Price, Department [Read More…]
  • Joint Statement on the Occasion of a Trilateral Discussion among Afghanistan, Tajikistan and the United States
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Secretary Michael R. Pompeo with Taher Baraka of Al-Arabiya
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Incyte Corporation to Pay $12.6 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations for Paying Kickbacks
    In Crime News
    A pharmaceutical company headquartered in Delaware has agreed to pay $12.6 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by paying kickbacks.
    [Read More…]
  • Arkansas Man Charged in $100 Million COVID-19 Health Care Fraud Scheme
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in the Western District of Arkansas returned an indictment yesterday charging an Arkansas man who owned or managed numerous diagnostic testing laboratories with health care fraud in connection with over $100 million dollars in false billings for urine drug testing, COVID-19 testing, and other clinical laboratory services.
    [Read More…]
  • Department Press Briefing – February 17, 2021
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ned Price, Department [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Veterans Health Care: Addressing High Risk Concerns for Oversight and Accountability Are Key to Ensuring Quality of Care and Patient Safety
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found GAO's work has identified a range of concerns with the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) oversight and accountability of its health care system, including those related to quality of care and patient safety. Since GAO added VA health care to its High-Risk List in 2015, GAO has made 131 recommendations related to VA's oversight and accountability, almost half of all GAO's recommendations for VA health care. Recent examples of quality of care and patient safety recommendations include the following: VA has faced challenges in ensuring that its providers deliver safe and effective care to veterans. In February 2021, GAO identified 227providers that had been removed from VA employment but were potentially providing care in a community care network. GAO recommended that VA take actions to assess and address the situation.VA implemented this recommendation by reviewing and excluding 155providers from participating in VA's community care networks. In recent years, there have been reports of veterans dying by suicide on VA campuses—in locations such as inpatient settings, parking lots, and on the grounds of VA cemeteries. In September 2020, GAO found that VA lacks accurate information on the number of suicides and comprehensive analyses of the underlying causes. While VA agreed with two of GAO's recommendations to address these issues, VA still needs to provide documentation of key actions taken by the committee it established to improve its understanding of on-campus suicides. In June 2019, GAO found that VA's oversight of its regional health care networks was limited. GAO recommended that VA develop a process for assessing the overall performance of its networks to be able to better determine if a network's performance is positive, if it is functioning poorly, or if it requires remediation. While VA concurred with GAO's recommendation, VA still needs to provide documentation of the process developed to assess the overall performance of these networks in managing medical centers. Since the last high-risk update in March 2021, VA has taken steps to address some of the oversight and accountability concerns identified by GAO. In May 2021, VA published a revised high-risk action plan for addressing VA health care concerns. However, VA is still in the beginning stages of developing its plan to address root causes such as a fragmented oversight and accountability infrastructure and will need clearly defined metrics to ensure it is effective. Fully addressing oversight and accountability concerns also requires sustained leadership attention as well as leadership stability. However, the Under Secretary for Health position responsible for managing VA health care has not had permanent leadership since January 2017. While VA takes steps to address its needed transformation, it should continue to implement recommendations GAO has made in the oversight and accountability area, given the number of these similar types of recommendations and the need to ensure quality of care and patient safety. Why GAO Did This Study VA operates one of the nation's largest health care systems. GAO's work, along with that of VA's Office of Inspector General and others, has cited longstanding issues with VA's oversight of its health care system. In 2015, GAO added VA health care to its High-Risk List, in which one broad area of concern was inadequate oversight and accountability. In its latest high-risk update in March 2021, GAO noted continued concern over VA's ability to ensure the safety and protection of patients and staff, as well as to oversee its programs. This statement describes the oversight and accountability issues GAO's work has identified related to quality care and patient safety, and the status of VA's efforts to address its high-risk designation. This statement is based on GAO's body of work in this area. GAO’s Fiscal Year 2021 Rating for the Inadequate Oversight and Accountability Area For more information, contact Sharon M. Silas at (202) 512-7114 or silass@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Medicare Durable Medical Equipment: Effect of New Bid Surety Bond Requirement on Small Supplier Participation in the Competitive Bidding Program
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administers a competitive bidding program (CBP) to determine which suppliers may furnish certain durable medical equipment (DME) to Medicare beneficiaries in designated geographical areas. Specifically, suppliers submit bids to provide specified categories of DME items; CMS determines winning bids based on several factors, including the bid amount, and whether the estimated capacity of suppliers would meet the projected demand for those DME items in each area. Historically, winning suppliers could reject any contract offer to furnish CBP-covered items without penalty. This allowed them to help set CBP payment amounts without being held accountable for furnishing items at those amounts. However, beginning with round 2021—the most recent round of the CBP—bidding suppliers were required by law to obtain a $50,000 bid surety bond for each CBP area in which they submitted a bid. These bonds require a supplier to accept a contract offer when its bid amount is at or below the median of the winning suppliers' bids used to calculate the CBP payment amount offered for each product category. If it does not, the supplier forfeits the bond. GAO found that small suppliers successfully obtained contracts in CBP round 2021. For example, small suppliers accounted for 58 percent of the suppliers awarded contracts in round 2021. Slightly more than half of the bids small suppliers submitted resulted in contracts. Contract Awards by Supplier Size for the Round 2021 Competitions   Suppliers that bid Suppliers awarded contracts Size of bidders Number Percent Number Percent Small suppliers 383 60 207 58 Large suppliers 231 36 148 42 Unknown suppliers 24 4 0 0 Total 638 100 355 100 Source: GAO analysis of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) data. I GAO-21-602 Notes: CMS defines small suppliers bidding as those generating $3.5 million or less in total gross Medicare and non-Medicare revenue annually, large suppliers as those generating more than that amount of revenue, and unknown suppliers as those whose entire bid was disqualified for a missing financial document and, therefore, did not advance to the evaluation process where a supplier's size is determined. CMS data suggest that bid surety bonds did not negatively affect small supplier participation in CBP round 2021. Specifically, the data show that the small supplier participation rate in round 2021 was comparable to that of the five prior CBP rounds. The data also indicated that only about 5 percent of small suppliers' bids were disqualified due to submission of invalid bid surety bonds. Representatives from two national DME industry trade organizations, as well as six of their small supplier members, told GAO that the new bid surety bond requirement did not create a barrier for small suppliers, as bid surety bonds were accessible to small suppliers and reasonably priced. However, some of these representatives reported other factors may affect small suppliers' future participation in CBP rounds, such as concerns related to small suppliers' ability to provide items at rates that are competitive with larger suppliers. Why GAO Did This Study To achieve Medicare savings and address fraud concerns, Congress required that CMS, in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), phase in a CBP for certain DME product categories in designated geographical (or CBP) areas. CBP Round 2021 began on January 1, 2021, and included two product categories (off-the-shelf knee braces and off-the-shelf back braces) in a total of 235 CBP area and product category combinations (known as competitions). CMS estimated that round 2021 will save Medicare more than $600 million over the 3-year contract period. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 included a provision for GAO to evaluate the effect of the new bid surety bond requirement on small supplier participation in the CBP. CMS defines small suppliers as those generating $3.5 million or less in total gross Medicare and non-Medicare revenue annually. This report describes 1) the extent to which small suppliers participated in CBP round 2021 and 2) what is known about how the bid surety bond requirement and other factors affected or may affect small supplier participation in the CBP. GAO reviewed bidding process and contract award data; interviewed CMS officials; and interviewed representatives from two national DME industry trade organizations, including six of their small DME supplier members, that GAO selected based on their familiarity with the CBP and the new bid surety bond requirement. HHS provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact Michelle B. Rosenberg at (202) 512-7114 or rosenbergm@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • How We Transformed Public Health Data for COVID-19 and the Futur
    In Human Health, Resources and Services
    Data is the lifeblood of [Read More…]
  • Professional Standards Update No. 82
    In U.S GAO News
    To alert the audit community to changes in professional standards, we periodically issue Professional Standards Updates (PSU). These updates highlight the effective dates and issuance of recent standards and guidance related to engagements conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. PSUs contain summary information only, and those affected by a change should refer to the respective standard or guidance for details.
    [Read More…]
  • Department Press Briefing – February 5, 2021
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ned Price, Department [Read More…]
  • “Project Python” Mexican national convicted of meth smuggling
    In Justice News
    A 47-year-old resident [Read More…]
  • F-35 Sustainment: Enhanced Attention to and Oversight of F-35 Affordability Are Needed
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found F-35 mission capable rates—a measure of the readiness of an aircraft fleet—have recently improved, but still fall short of warfighter requirements, as discussed in our draft report. Specifically, from fiscal year 2019 to fiscal year 2020, the U.S. F-35 fleet's average annual (1) mission capable rate—the percentage of time during which the aircraft can fly and perform one of its tasked missions—improved from 59 to 69 percent; and (2) full mission capable rate—the percentage of time during which the aircraft can perform all of its tasked missions—improved from 32 to 39 percent. Both metrics fall below the services' objectives. For example, in fiscal year 2020 the Air Force F-35A full mission capable rate was 54 percent, versus a 72 percent objective. Since 2012, F-35 estimated sustainment costs over its 66-year life cycle have increased steadily, from $1.11 trillion to $1.27 trillion, despite efforts to reduce costs. The services face a substantial and growing gap between estimated sustainment costs and affordability constraints—i.e., costs per tail (aircraft) per year that the services project they can afford—totaling about $6 billion in 2036 alone (see fig.). The services will collectively be confronted with tens of billions of dollars in sustainment costs that they project as unaffordable during the program. Gap between F-35 Affordability Constraints and Estimated Sustainment Costs in 2036 Note: Costs are in constant year 2012 dollars as that was the year when the F-35 program was most recently re-baselined. aSteady state years for the F-35 program are defined in each respective service's affordability analysis as: US Air Force/F-35A – 2036-2041; US Marine Corps/F-35B – 2033-2037; US Navy/F-35C – 2036-2043. Steady state refers to the program's peak operating point. The Air Force needs to reduce estimated costs per tail per year by $3.7 million (or 47 percent) by 2036 or it will incur $4.4 billion in costs beyond what it currently projects it could afford in that year alone. Cost reductions become increasingly difficult as the program grows and matures. However, GAO found there is no agreed upon approach to achieve the constraints. Without an assessment of cost-reduction efforts and program requirements (such as number of planned aircraft), along with a plan, the Department of Defense (DOD) may continue to invest resources in a program it ultimately cannot afford. Congress requiring DOD to report on its progress in achieving affordability constraints and making F-35 procurements contingent on DOD's demonstrated progress would enhance DOD's accountability for taking the necessary and appropriate actions to afford sustaining the F-35 fleet. Why GAO Did This Study The F-35 aircraft with its advanced capabilities represents a growing portion of DOD's tactical aviation fleet—with the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy currently flying about 400 of the aircraft. It is also DOD's most ambitious and costly weapon system in history, with estimated life-of-program costs exceeding $1.7 trillion. DOD plans to procure nearly 2,500 F-35s at an estimated total acquisition cost of just under $400 billion. The remaining $1.3 trillion in life cycle costs is associated with operating and sustaining the aircraft. This statement, among other things, assesses the extent to which (1) the F-35 has met warfighter-required mission capable rates; and (2) DOD has reduced the F-35's estimated life cycle sustainment costs and made progress in meeting its affordability constraints. This statement is largely based on GAO's draft report, which was provided to DOD in March for review and comment. For that report and this statement, GAO reviewed program documentation, analyzed performance and cost data, collected data from F-35 locations, and interviewed officials.
    [Read More…]

Crime

Network News © 2005 Area.Control.Network™ All rights reserved.