DOJ Civil Division Announces Five Enforcement Priorities
On June 11, 2025, in a memorandum entitled Civil Division Enforcement Priorities (the “Memo”), the Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Division outlined its five priority areas for investigations and enforcement actions: (1) “discriminatory” private sector Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives; (2) “participating in or allowing antisemitism;” (3) provision of gender-affirming care; (4) “sanctuary” jurisdictions; and (5) denaturalization of broader categories of US citizens. These priorities align with recent executive orders and DOJ actions in the new administration and provide an instructive roadmap of the Civil Division’s direction going forward.
Targeting DEI Initiatives
Citing President Donald Trump’s Executive Order (EO) 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,1 which targeted “illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities,” the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, Brett Shumate, stated that the Division would use “all available resources” to address unlawful discriminatory practices in the private sector. This includes “aggressively investigat[ing]” and pursuing False Claims Act (FCA) claims against recipients of federal funds. While the full scope of policies that are included within “illegal” DEI policies remains unclear, the DEI-related policies of claimants of federal funds or federal contractors may be closely scrutinized following the establishment of DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative last month. We provided insights in a May Legal Update.
Combating Antisemitism
Earlier this year, President Trump directed the heads of all executive agencies to identify “all civil and criminal authorities or actions” to “curb or combat anti-Semitism” in EO 14188, Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism.2 Building from this and the establishment by Attorney General Pam Bondi of the Joint Task Force October 7, which “seek[s] justice for the victims of the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack in Israel,” the Memo directs Civil Division attorneys to investigate and bring enforcement actions against claimants of federal funds that “knowingly violate federal civil rights laws by participating in or allowing antisemitism.” Targets of investigations can include government contractors, institutions of higher education, and other recipients of federal funds through grants or awards. This again implicates potential FCA investigations, and puts at risk not only colleges and universities, but also may lead to scrutiny of the private and nonprofit sectors. This could, for example, be expanded to workplace and hiring practices, and leaves open whether traditional discrimination standards of proof or an entirely new standard would be applied to such actions.
Investigating Gender-Affirming Care Using the FDCA
The third enforcement priority, titled “Protecting Women and Children,” states that the Civil Division will “prioritize investigations of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other appropriate entities” for their role in gender-affirming care. This priority area was foreshadowed by a June 2, 2025 post on X in which the FBI called for the public to report “hospitals, clinics, or practitioners performing” gender-affirming surgeries on minors, characterizing these treatments as “mutilations.” Similar investigations have been previously launched by State Attorneys General. For example, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, sought medical records related to gender-affirming care from the Seattle Children’s Hospital, but subsequently withdrew the request in 2024, after a settlement was reached.
The Memo emphasizes that the Civil Division will investigate violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA),3 among other laws, by (quoting directly from the memo) “(1) pharmaceutical companies that manufacture drugs used in connection with so-called gender transition and (2) dealers such as online pharmacies suspected of illegally selling such drugs.” Under the new guidance, the Civil Division also “will aggressively pursue claims under the [FCA] against health care providers that bill the federal government for impermissible services.”
The DOJ appears to be targeting the “off-label” use of pharmaceutical and biotech products, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapies. These products have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in treating various indications, including advanced prostate cancer, central precocious puberty and endometriosis—but not for use in gender-affirming care. Off-label use of such products by practitioners is typically governed by state law; the use of off-label is not a violation of the FDCA. At the federal level, however, the FDCA generally prohibits the promotion of off-label uses by pharmaceutical and biotech product sponsors, and off-label promotion has long been the thrust of many FCA cases in the Life Sciences space.
Bringing Affirmative Preemption Litigation Against “Sanctuary” Jurisdictions
The Trump Administration and congressional Republicans have targeted “sanctuary jurisdictions”—cities and states that are alleged to obstruct immigration enforcement. Earlier this year, DOJ filed the first lawsuit challenging sanctuary policies in four New Jersey cities. The Memo makes plain DOJ’s commitment to file additional lawsuits to invalidate state or local laws if, in DOJ’s view, such laws are preempted by federal law. One day after the Memo was issued, DOJ filed another such suit against the State of New York and its officials. This complaint specifically challenges a New York law, titled the Protect Our Courts Act, that DOJ alleges “purposefully shields dangerous aliens from being lawfully detained at or on their way to or from a courthouse and imposes criminal liability for violations of the shield.” In the press release announcing the suit, Attorney General Bondi also claimed that “[l]awless sanctuary city policies are the root cause of the violence that Americans have seen in California.” This priority suggests DOJ may file similar lawsuits across the nation against other jurisdictions with similar laws.
Denaturalizing US Citizens
The final priority, and the one containing the most detail in the Memo, seeks to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.” The Memo lists ten different priority categories for denaturalization. During President Trump’s first term, the Civil Division established a Denaturalization Section, which the Biden Administration disbanded. The Memo does not indicate whether this section will be formally reestablished, and the priority categories listed in the Memo are more expansive than the Denaturalization Section’s previous focus on individuals who posed national security threats, had committed war crimes or other human rights abuses, or had committed serious felonies that were not disclosed during the naturalization process. Some of the categories are quite broad and could potentially include misdemeanor convictions (i.e., “individuals who engaged in fraud”) that were not disclosed during the naturalization process. For example, on June 13, DOJ secured the denaturalization of an individual who failed to disclose if he had “ever committed a crime or offense for which [he] was not arrested” when applying for US citizenship and again during a citizenship interview. The Memo suggests that DOJ is likely to pursue similar actions.
Key Takeaways
In light of the Memo, companies (particularly healthcare companies) and, higher education institutions, must remain vigilant and proactive in their efforts to comply with the evolving enforcement landscape. Companies should carefully evaluate their DEI policies and programs to ensure compliance with the federal civil rights laws, and prepare for potential federal investigations of—and challenges to—any DEI policies and hiring and personnel practices. States, cities, and local governments with “sanctuary” policies should expect challenges similar to those brought in New Jersey and New York. Mayer Brown’s multidisciplinary team is uniquely positioned to provide strategic legal counsel on the complex legal, compliance, employment, and immigrations issues presented by actions brought in connection with these DOJ enforcement priorities.
1 90 Fed. Reg. 8633 (Jan. 21, 2025)
2 90 Fed. Reg. 8847 (Jan. 29, 2025)
3 The memorandum erroneously cites 31 U.S.C. Section 301, but presumably intended to generally reference 21 U.S.C. 301. Notably, the memorandum did not cite specific potential statutory violations.
