Latest news with #FalseClaimsAct
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge weighs challenge to Trump mandates as domestic violence groups warn of shutdown risk
PROVIDENCE – Upon returning to office, President Trump moved swiftly to issue executive orders on gender ideology, DEI and immigration and mandate that federal agencies carry out those priorities. And the administration's directives have been mired in the courts ever since. U.S. District Court Senior Judge William E. Smith on July 29 weighed arguments in a lawsuit challenging the administration's efforts to extend those dictates to recipients of federal grant funding. Seventeen nationwide domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions, led by the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, in June sued the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Pamela Bondi over the government's requirements. The Office on Violence Against Women and its acting director, Ginger Lyons, which distribute the money, are also named defendants. The suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island; the Lawyers' Committee for Rhode Island, Democracy Forward, Jacobson Lawyers Group, and the National Women's Law Center. They are seeking a court order to block the conditions the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women has placed on grants. The Office agreed to delay the requirements in grant applications until Aug. 12. Judge Smith said he intends to issue a ruling by that date. Fears of liability Lawyers argued that requiring organizations to certify that they agree to and are complying with the administration's priorities to secure funding puts them at risk of financial and criminal liability under the False Claims Act – a weapon, they argued, the government has indicated it is poised to do. Grant recipients could be exposed to liability, for example, if they provide shelter to an undocumented survivor of domestic violence, Kristin Bateman, of Democracy Forward, told the court. In addition, the grant conditions overstep the administration's authority, violating the separation of powers, she said. Congress is empowered to attach conditions to federal money, not the president, she said. Plus, the requirements force organizations to adopt views on gender ideology and potentially bar them from using clients' preferred pronouns and even chosen names, she said – in violation of their rights to free speech. The groups argued that the organizations are faced with a Hobson's Choice. They can certify their compliance or risk losing essential funding if not. Some organizations face being shuttered altogether with the loss of grant funds; other would have to lay off staff, said Daniel F. Jacobson, of Jacobson Lawyers Group. 'One of the problems here is that it's really hard to understand what these conditions even mean,' Smith observed, while recognizing that immigration is a matter of federal law. 'The terms could change' U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Kathryn Barragan argued it would be premature for Smith to issue an order as no grants have been awarded or accepted to date. The conditions simply explain the details on the grants, she said. 'The terms could change,' she said. Smith noted that the organizations are being required to certify their compliance with the conditions in applying for grants. Awarding the grants is a matter of the agency's discretion, Barragan said. 'The Office of Violence Against Women has broad discretion on how to administer its grant program,' she said – a representation the organizations refuted. Smith questioned how DEI and views on transsexuality fit into domestic violence. 'It wouldn't further the purposes of these grants,' Barragan said. She stated that the directives are aimed at people who identify as women who want access to female bathrooms and shelters. She pushed back on arguments about liability under the False Claims Act and suggested organizations can work with the agency to alleviate any fears about noncompliance. Jacobson, of Jacobson Lawyers Group, said the organizations need to know 'on the ground' whether their actions are legal in urging the court to block the requirements. This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Domestic violence grant mandates challenged in RI court
Business Insider
3 days ago
- Business
- Business Insider
J.P. Morgan Weighs In on UnitedHealth Stock Amid DOJ Scrutiny
UnitedHealth (NYSE:UNH) stock slipped again on Thursday, a familiar pattern in what's shaping up to be a rough year. Shares have tumbled 44% year-to-date, weighed down by a string of negative developments, including disappointing Q1 results, a CEO change, the suspension of guidance, and rising costs tied to UHC's Medicare Advantage members. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. Thursday's 5% drop was driven by renewed scrutiny over an ongoing legal matter. UNH disclosed that it had proactively reached out to the DOJ following a February Wall Street Journal report revealing a civil investigation into its Medicare Advantage risk-coding practices. In its latest filing, the company confirmed that it is now responding to formal civil and criminal inquiries, has launched its own internal review, and remains cooperative with CMS audits. UNH also pointed to a favorable March ruling from a Special Master in a separate, long-running DOJ civil case as a sign of how past challenges have played out. This shift from 'unaware' in February to 'proactively cooperating' now isn't surprising to J.P. Morgan analyst Lisa Gill, who views the company's engagement as part of a broader defense of its practices. 'While we are not lawyers,' Gill noted, 'we note that if the court were to view this case similarly to previous ones brought forth by DOJ regarding the False Claims Act (FCA), we believe that this would place the burden of proof on the DOJ to prove improper coding.' Though the investigation has added another layer of uncertainty, Gill contextualizes it within broader industry trends. The analyst points to risk-adjustment programs like RADV and regulatory updates like V28 as ongoing efforts to refine coding practices across the Medicare Advantage landscape. Viewed through that lens, the current probes may ultimately reflect how companies have adapted, rather than acted improperly. Still, Gill acknowledges the ambiguity facing investors. The company's filing offers limited detail, and any legal proceedings stemming from the DOJ's inquiries are likely to be drawn out. Much could hinge on the outcome of the ongoing DOJ-backed civil case – one in which the Special Master recently recommended dismissal due to lack of evidence, though the DOJ has challenged that recommendation. In the meantime, Gill is looking ahead to next week's earnings call for added clarity, and remains optimistic. The analyst assigns UNH an Overweight (i.e., Buy) rating and $418 price target, suggesting the stock could rebound by 48% over the next 12 months. (To watch Gill's track record, click here) And she's not alone. 17 other analysts share Gill's bullish outlook, while 5 remain on the sidelines and just one is bearish. Altogether, the stock carries a Moderate Buy consensus rating. The average price target stands at $348.12, implying a ~24% upside from current levels. (See UNH stock forecast) To find good ideas for stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks' Best Stocks to Buy, a tool that unites all of TipRanks' equity insights.
USA Today
5 days ago
- Business
- USA Today
UnitedHealth complies with DOJ criminal, civil requests, filing shows
July 24 (Reuters) - UnitedHealth on Thursday publicly confirmed it was under investigation by the Department of Justice and said it was complying with both criminal and civil requests from the federal agency. The disclosure was made in a regulatory filing, marking a shift in tone for the healthcare conglomerate, which earlier this year amid media reports of a civil as well as criminal investigation, said it was unaware of any new probes and denied wrongdoing. The company said it proactively reached out to the Department of Justice after reviewing the media reports about its participation in the Medicare program, and that it is committed to cooperating with federal authorities. The DOJ did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. More: UnitedHealth accused of secret nursing home payments to cut hospital transfers Shares of UnitedHealth slipped 3.5% in early trading, continuing a major slide that has seen the stock shed over 40% of its value this year, amid growing investor frustration over management missteps. The Wall Street Journal has published a series of reports stating that the DOJ was investigating UnitedHealth's Medicare business, a U.S. government program that covers medical costs for individuals aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. "There's just been several instances especially this year where they've (UNH) kind of had to walk back things that they've said or the company (is) obscuring some of the details… that's become very frustrating for investors," James Harlow, senior vice president at Novare Capital Management said. UnitedHealth said it has full confidence in its practices and noted that independent audits by CMS have ranked its methods among the most accurate in the industry. More: UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty stepping down due to 'personal reasons' The company also pointed to favorable decision from a court-appointed special master in a decade-long civil challenge by the department to aspects of its Medicare Advantage business, which concluded that there was no evidence to support claims of wrongdoing. analyst Lisa Gill said in a note that UnitedHealth's "proactive" approach to work with regulators was not surprising. She said that under the False Claims Act, the burden of proof would fall squarely on the DOJ. UnitedHealth also said it has launched its own initiative to conduct third-party reviews of policies, practices, associated processes and performance metrics for risk assessment coding, managed care practices and pharmacy services. (Reporting by Sriparna Roy in Bengaluru; Editing by Pooja Desai and Shinjini Ganguli)
Boston Globe
5 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
R.I. judge issues temporary restraining order against HHS and HUD over anti-DEI, transgender restrictions on federal grants
Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up Lawyers for the coalition argued the restrictions were vague, violated their First Amendment right to free speech, violated the separation of powers, and the departments exceeded their authority. The policies go into effect next week, so the organizations that don't agree will lose their funding. Advertisement Just a half-hour before the Thursday's hearing, HHS changed its policy again, removing the 'Minutes before we stood up here, HHS adopted different language for the grant policy statement that no longer contains the DEI condition,' Assistant US Attorney Kevin Love Hubbard, the chief of the civil division in the US Attorney's Office in Rhode Island, told the court. Advertisement Now, he said, the policy was changed to say that a recipient agrees to comply with 'all federal anti-discrimination laws' in order to receive the federal funds. 'So it's basically: you have to follow federal law to get federal funds, which was the case before," Hubbard said. Kristin Bateman, the senior counsel for Democracy Forward and one of the lawyers representing the coalition, said a temporary restraining order was still necessary because the policy could change again. 'We have an administration that wants to eradicate DEI from the government, from the private sector, and they have threatened to use the False Claims Act as a weapon to go after people who do those things,' Bateman said. 'They have made clear that they think that DEI ... often usually violates Bateman said the administration had made clear its goals were to eradicate DEI measures, and the Department of Justice announced it would also go after DEI. 'It said, 'we're going to use False Claims Act as a 'weapon' ... and we're going to enlist the criminal division, we're going to strongly encourage private plaintiffs,'' Bateman said. 'Literally, anyone can go into court and bring a suit against somebody who is doing DEI or DEIA, and they can claim that was a violation of the certification requirement.' After asking questions about what harms the groups would face, Dubose said she would grant a temporary restraining order. Advertisement 'Obviously, we're living in a time where there are rapidly changing circumstances. Even as we're sitting here, things are changing,' Dubose said. She had some caveats, asking the plaintiffs to narrowly tailor their order for the scope of the injunction to cover those facing 'real irreparable harm,' taking into consideration the changes in HHS policy on Thursday. The order will apply to three divisions under The lawsuit is led by the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence and includes other Rhode Island organizations: House of Hope Community Development Corporation; Community Care Alliance; Foster Forward; Rhode Island Coalition to End Homelessness; and Haus of Codec. The coalition also includes California Partnership To End Domestic Violence, Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, the District Of Columbia Coalition Against Domestic Violence, End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin, The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Idaho Coalition Against Sexual And Domestic Violence, Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Jane Doe Inc. (The Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault And Domestic Violence), Kansas Coalition Against Sexual And Domestic Violence, Montana Coalition Against Domestic And Sexual Violence, North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Oregon Coalition Against Domestic And Sexual Violence, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, ValorUS, Violence Free Minnesota, Virginia Sexual And Domestic Violence Action Alliance, Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Amanda Milkovits can be reached at
NBC News
21-07-2025
- Health
- NBC News
Domestic violence and sexual assault organizations sue Trump administration over funding restrictions
More than 20 nonprofit organizations that receive federal grants to serve victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, and those experiencing homelessness, filed a lawsuit Monday against the Trump administration over new funding requirements. The organizations — which are spread across more than a dozen states and include Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and Violence Free Minnesota — allege the changes at the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Health and Human Services (HHS) 'have thrown a wrench' in their 'life-saving work.' Some of the plaintiffs, according to the suit, stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal funds. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, states that the new restrictions do not enable the plaintiffs to better serve vulnerable members of society and instead 'seek to advance the Administration's wholly unrelated ideological goals—including to end 'diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility,' deny transgender people's identities, and cut off access to abortion resources and referrals.' In March, for example, HUD Secretary Scott Turner announced in a post on social media that the department would impose new conditions on funds distributed through its Continuum of Care program, which is designed to end homelessness. The conditions cite several executive orders President Donald Trump issued during the first weeks of his presidency, including that the government will only legally recognize two, unchangeable sexes; deem diversity, equity and inclusion programs within the federal government 'illegal'; and end 'forced use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion.' HHS and three of its divisions — the Administration for Children and Families, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Health Resources and Services Administration — were also named as defendants and have enacted similar conditions for grant recipients, affecting the CDC's Rape Prevention and Education program, funding for families who have experienced domestic violence and grants intended to reduce infant and maternal mortality, among other programs. In line with those executive orders, the conditions at HUD and HHSprohibit grant recipients from using funds to promote 'gender ideology,' which the administration defines as the concept that someone's gender identity can be different than their birth sex. They also require recipients to certify that they do 'not operate any programs that violate any applicable Federal antidiscrimination laws' and prohibit recipients from using funds to 'fund or promote elective abortions.' The complaint argues that the requirements have been written in a way 'expressly designed to expose grantees to civil and criminal liability' under the False Claims Act, which prohibits false claims to the federal government. The complaint says these new conditions put plaintiffs 'between a rock and a hard place.' 'They can accept the conditions—and fundamentally change their programming, abandon outreach methods and programs designed to best serve their communities, and risk exposing themselves to ruinous liability. Or they can decline the funding and halt their funded programs—displacing domestic and sexual violence survivors from safe housing, ending programs designed to reduce and prevent domestic and sexual violence, and putting previously homeless families and children back on the streets,' the complaint states. HHS, the Administration for Children and Families, the CDC, the Health Resources and Services Administration and HUD did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the complaint. Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs, said the new policy is an example of the administration continuing to 'target people in vulnerable communities.' 'Organizations serving survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, LGBTQ+ youth, and people experiencing homelessness should not be forced to abandon their work, erase the identities of those they serve, or compromise their values just to keep their doors open,' Perryman said in a statement. 'This unlawful and harmful policy puts extreme schemes ahead of people's dignity and safety by restricting essential federal support.' The suit, which asks the court to permanently block the funding conditions, argues that imposing the restrictions exceeds the government's authority by circumventing Congress, which generally approves any changes to federal funding. In addition, the suit argues that in some cases the conditions conflict with other federal policies. For example, recipients of Continuum of Care funds are required to comply with nondiscrimination regulations, the suit states, including HUD's equal access rule, which requires services, including sleep quarters and bathroom facilities, to be 'provided to an individual in accordance with the individual's gender identity,' and that individuals are 'not subjected to intrusive questioning' or asked to provide evidence of their gender identity.
