A federal judge in California questioned the limits of judicial review on Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s (HPE) $14 billion takeover of Juniper, specifically asking whether a settlement can be approved simply because “something is better than nothing,” even if the remedy is inadequate.

Judge Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California scrutinized the deal in a hearing earlier this week after a coalition of states sought to challenge the mega-deal. The group specifically took issue with claims that HPE procured lobbyists with close ties to the Trump administration to help the deal through, and whether the terms of the settlement adequately address concerns about competition.

According to MLex, during his examination of the case, Judge Pitts admitted to “struggling” to determine whether to approve a remedy, however inadequate, simply because it is preferable to no remedy at all, particularly if the government risked losing at trial.

The judge pressed both Department of Justice (DOJ) and HPE counsel on whether historical merger remedies have meaningfully protected competition, or whether they have tended to accomplish little.

HPE attorney Samuel Liversidge cited the American Airlines-U.S. Airways merger as a case where conditional approval was deemed sufficient. In that case, several states and the DOJ sought to challenge the deal over competition concerns, only for the dispute to settle some months later after the parties agreed to make certain divestitures.

But on that example, Pitts noted the subsequent consolidation in the airline industry – an implicit suggestion that the remedy's long-term effectiveness remained an open question.

Liversidge argued back for HPE, contending that in the case of HPE-Juniper, the relevant markets are “intensively competitive,” adding: “We do have significant competitors in the space that really are winning business at all levels of the customer stack.”

A deal under scrutiny

At the center of the argument brought by the coalition of states probing the case were claims that HPE enlisted lobbyists with known ties to the Trump administration to get the deal over the line.

Arthur Biller, senior assistant attorney general at Colorado Attorney General’s Office, continued that argument before Pitts, contending HPE’s settlement should be looked at “with great skepticism” and that the tech giant “consciously used people that were able to exert very strong political influence.”

“If we don’t make a stand here, we’re tolerating pay-for-play politics, political influence peddling, and giving favored companies better treatment,”The New York Times quoted Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser as saying.

HPE denied the claims, asserting in a prior filing that “not a single witness or document supported the states’ (false) insinuations about ‘corruption’ or a ‘secret’ side agreement – an issue they spent untold hours trying (but failing) to substantiate during discovery.”

A trio of lawyers hired by HPE will, however, testify before the court after an earlier ruling by Judge Pitts moved not to block deposition testimony. William Levi, Mike Davis, and consultant Arthur Schwartz will face questions from the state lawyers looking into the deal about their work for HPE and communications with the government or other parties.

The DOJ had filed a lawsuit against HPE just days after President Trump began his second term in an attempt to block the then-prospective Juniper takeover over fears it would stifle competition in the enterprise networking market.

But mere days before that case was due to be examined in court, a settlement was reached between the DOJ and HPE. That settlement included stipulations that Juniper’s AI Ops for Mist source code would be licensed and that HPE would divest its Instant On wireless LAN (WLAN) campus and branch network switching business.

Addressing what some viewed as minimal concessions, Judge Pitts pressed DOJ senior litigation counsel Henry Su on whether the track record of past merger remedies should inform his thinking, specifically whether such conditions have historically protected competition or done, in his words, “next to nothing.”

Su insisted that each situation is “fact-specific," but did go on to reference one instance in which a merger between two Idaho health care providers included related remedies that preserved market competition.

Pitt’s perceived remedy-related skepticism at the hearing didn't emerge in a vacuum. Democratic senators rang alarm bells over the deal in a letter last August, citing internal DOJ disagreement with the deal, of which the Trump administration allegedly overruled.

Roger Alford, who had served as principal deputy assistant attorney general at the DOJ Antitrust Division, was fired for alleged insubordination concerning the HPE deal. Alford then went on the offensive, claiming that the trio hired by HPE to serve as advisors on the acquisition efforts were instead “corrupt lobbyists with no relevant expertise.”

Just last month, Alford’s superior, antitrust chief Gail Slater, resigned amid claims she misrepresented the national security implications of the deal. Upon her exit, Slater said national security concerns were not raised between the DOJ and HPE in its June 2025 settlement, adding: “To the fullest extent of my knowledge, no conversations took place between me or the antitrust division and U.S. intelligence agencies during my tenure.”

Alford’s allegations have since been rebuffed by the DOJ, with the agency referring to him as “the James Comey of antitrust – pursuing blind self-promotion and ego, while ignoring reality.”