Feature Article

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the voluntary resignation of Sharon Eubanks, a 22-year veteran of the department and lead counsel in the DOJ's racketeering lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Her resignation comes at a critical time when the parties are awaiting a decision by the trial judge and may be discussing a possible settlement. Eubanks cited the recent reassignment of many of the trial team's members, which totaled as many as 35 at one point, as one reason for her departure. She has also voiced dissatisfaction over the decision by political appointees in the Department to cut the recommended penalties against the tobacco industry. That change was made during closing arguments in the trial, over the objection of trial team members. In a recent interview with the Washington Post, she declined to discuss internal DOJ deliberations, but stated that "my current supervisors, in particular [Deputy Assistant Attorney General] Dan Meron, [Assistant Attorney General] Pete Keisler and [Associate Attorney General] Robert McCallum, have been somewhat less than supportive of the [trial] team's efforts." In addition, Eubanks noted that she was denied a performance review by her superiors, making her ineligible for a bonus.

In June, the Justice Department scaled back its original proposed remedies, which had included a 25-year, $130 billion national cessation program based on the expert testimony of Dr. Michael Fiore of the University of Wisconsin. In its place, the Justice Department proposed a 5-year, $10 billion cessation program. The Justice Department indicated that it would review whether appointed officials within the Justice Department improperly pressured Eubanks and her team into reducing the original remedies proposed. However, the Justice Department has not released the results of any such investigation.

Trial proceedings concluded on September 21, and a decision from Judge Kessler is expected in the coming months. On October 17, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by the Department of Justice on a previous ruling that barred the DOJ from seeking disgorgement as a remedy. Disgorgement, the confiscation of past profits gained as a result of unlawful activity, had been the largest and most significant remedy the DOJ was seeking in its RICO suit against the tobacco industry. The appelate court's ruling, stating that the Justice Department was limited to seeking only "forward-looking remedies," severely constrained what penalties Justice Department lawyers were able to request. Because the Supreme Court declined to hear the issue at this time, the Justice Department could seek Supreme Court review again following a judgment in the case.