Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Md.: Justice Department denied stay in UnitedHealth antitrust action despite government shutdown, (Oct 15, 2025)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The U.S. government had requested that all current deadlines for the parties be extended commensurate with the duration of the lapse in appropriations.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied the U.S. government’s motion for stay of the case in light of lapse of appropriations in the government’s challenge to UnitedHealth Group Incorporated’s (UnitedHealth’s) $3.3 billion acquisition of Amedisys Inc. The court found that granting a stay would contravene the public’s substantial interest in a prompt and final resolution of the case (U.S. v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03267-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 9, 2025)).

Background. UnitedHealth is a publicly traded Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Minnetonka, Minnesota. In 2023, UnitedHealth recorded $372 billion in revenue. It is a “vertically integrated insurer, healthcare provider, pharmacy benefit manager, and healthcare software and services vendor.” Amedisys is also a publicly traded Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. It is a home health and hospice service provider, which earned $2.2 billion in revenue in 2023.

In 2023, UnitedHealth acquired LHC Group, which was the nation’s third largest home health provider and a large hospice provider. Now that it is “under UnitedHealth’s umbrella,” LHC is the second-largest home health provider. In May 2023, UnitedHealth offered to acquire Amedisys for $3.3 billion.

In November 2024, the Justice Department, with the Attorneys General of Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York, announced the filing of an antitrust complaint in the District of Maryland to block the proposed acquisition. By eliminating competition, the proposed merger was presumptively anticompetitive and illegal, according to the suit. If the merger were to proceed without changes, the combination would result in UnitedHealth’s control of 30% or more of the home health or hospice services in eight states.

UnitedHealth originally proposed to divest certain facilities to VitalCaring Group to facilitate government approval. However, the complaint alleged that the proposed divestitures did not alleviate harm in over 100 home health, hospice, and labor markets. These markets generate at least a billion dollars annually, serve over 200,000 patients, and employ over 4,000 nurses. VitalCaring, in addition, has “lower quality scores than either UnitedHealth or Amedisys” and is facing financial challenges. VitalCaring would not be able to replace the “competitive intensity lost by the merger,” the government contended.

Proposed settlement. A proposed settlement reached by the parties in August 2025 would require UnitedHealth and Amedisys to divest 164 home health and hospice locations (including one affiliated palliative care facility) across 19 states, accounting for approximately $528 million in annual revenue. In addition, the proposed settlement would:

• Obligate UnitedHealth to divest eight additional locations if it fails to obtain regulatory approval for the divestiture of associated facilities without the additional locations;

• Impose a monitor to supervise UnitedHealth’s divestiture of the assets and compliance with the consent decree;

• Provide the divestiture buyers with the assets, personnel, and relationships to compete against UnitedHealth in the overlap areas;

• Incorporate robust protections to strengthen adherence to the decree and deter interference with the divestiture buyers’ ability to compete; and

• Require Amedisys to pay a $1.1 million civil penalty and train its corporate and field leadership on antitrust compliance for falsely certifying that the company had truthfully, correctly, and completely responded to the United States’ requests for documents (see Antitrust Law Daily, Aug. 12, 2025).

Motion for stay. The federal government shutdown began at 12:01AM on October 1, 2025, after Congress failed to agree on short-term continuing resolution appropriations for fiscal year 2026. In its motion for a stay of the case in light of lapse of appropriations, the U.S. government argued that, because of the government shutdown, Department of Justice attorneys and employees are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances. It requested that all current deadlines for the parties be extended commensurate with the duration of the lapse in appropriations. According to the motion, opposing counsel authorized counsel for the government to state that the defendants do not oppose the motion.

Stay denied. Under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, or the Tunney Act, the parties’ proposed final judgment is subject to a 60-day notice and comment period, after which the court must determine whether entry of the final judgment is in the public interest. The court determined that, by delaying the U.S.’s filing of its responses to public comments and its motion for entry of the final judgment, a stay would hinder the court in expeditiously evaluating the public interest in the settlement, engendering continued uncertainty surrounding the transactions at issue. The court stated that it “finds the internal dysfunction of one party to the case does not justify this outcome.”

Stays granted/denied in other enforcement actions. Federal courts have stayed several pending antitrust matters in light of the federal government shutdown. Federal district courts stayed pending U.S. antitrust actions against Agri Stats, Inc., Apple, Inc., KKR & Co., Inc., and Visa, Inc. However, as of October 1, the federal district court in New York City denied a stay of the 39-state and DOJ action against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, without prejudice. The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia also denied a stay on day 9 of the Google trial (see Antitrust Law Daily, Oct. 6, 2025).

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-03267-JKB.

Judge: Bredar, J.

Attorneys: Aaron Comenetz, U.S. Department of Justice, for the U.S. Amarto Bhattacharyya (Kirkland & Ellis LLP) for UnitedHealth Group Inc.

Companies: UnitedHealth Group Inc.

Cases: Antitrust MarylandNews AntitrustDivisionNews