In February, just weeks ahead of a major court case tackling monopoly issues, the Department of Justice experienced a significant shake-up with the resignation of its chief antitrust enforcer.

Gail Slater, head of the Antitrust Division, surprised many by announcing her departure via her personal X account. However, insiders weren’t shocked due to ongoing reports of internal conflicts between Slater’s team and DOJ leadership, compounded by President Donald Trump’s personal input in deal-making, which cast doubt on who was truly steering antitrust decisions.

Earlier in the year, the DOJ dismissed two of Slater’s key deputies for alleged “insubordination.” One of these deputies later claimed they had resisted an agreement between Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper Networks, which was allegedly backed by lobbyists and officials linked to the “MAGA” movement. Another deputy left the agency shortly before Slater’s resignation.

Slater’s exit prompted further questions due to Mike Davis’s involvement, a lobbyist with ties to Trump, who was also reportedly associated with Live Nation—a connection that Live Nation did not address. A former DOJ official, speaking anonymously, suggested that Slater’s departure made apparent a trend where powerful corporations could push through questionable deals by leveraging financial influence. Following Slater’s announcement, Attorney General Pam Bondi expressed gratitude for her efforts in promoting consumer protection and economic opportunity.

The DOJ and a group of what’s grown to 40 state attorneys general sued Live Nation-Ticketmaster in May 2024, seeking to break up the company they allege used anticompetitive practices to lock artists and venues into its orbit. By allegedly tying together different parts of its business, using exclusionary contracts, and threatening “financial retaliation” to keep new players out of the market, the company succeeded in driving up ticket prices for consumers, they argue. Live Nation said in a blog post at the time that the lawsuit “ignores everything that is actually responsible for higher ticket prices.”

With jury selection in the case slated to begin on March 2nd, many are left wondering if the DOJ will remain on the case. Should the agency settle and choose to no longer be involved in the trial, at least some of the 40 states who joined the DOJ in the initial lawsuit could — and likely would — continue to push ahead with the litigation. “We look forward to going to trial on March 2 against Live Nation,” California’s top antitrust enforcer, Paula Blizzard, said at an event the day of Slater’s announcement. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti also plans to move forward with the states’ lawsuit, Capitol Forum reported.

The DOJ very well may remain a lead plaintiff. Omeed Assefi, who is taking over Slater’s role in the interim, pledged to continue her agenda, MLex reported. As of February 17th, he has said the case is strong and favors trial, according to Capitol Forum. Global Competition Review also reported last week that Assefi encouraged staff to look to his work on criminal antitrust enforcement as a guide to how he’ll lead the division. “Ask them how I feel about settling cases in lieu of trial,” he reportedly said. “Ask them how I feel about accepting half measures and mere monetary penalties in lieu of seeking justice.”

But Slater, too, was known as a serious enforcer of antitrust law — and reports suggest her agenda was overruled.

In general, states are always prepared for changes in their trial partners, says Gwendolyn Lindsay Cooley, former Wisconsin antitrust chief and chair of the National Association of Attorneys General Multistate Antitrust Task Force. (Cooley agreed to speak generally about the role of state enforcement and not about the Live Nation case in particular, which Wisconsin was part of during her time there.) “The states are no stranger to real politik,” Cooley says. State enforcers understand that priorities and personnel can change with administrations, either in state offices or at the DOJ. This can require changes, like reassigning the most seasoned lawyers to fill gaps left by federal attorneys. But Cooley says there are plenty of experienced litigators in the states. “My understanding from talking with states generally is that this is something they were prepared for, and so should be able to take this in stride,” Cooley says.

The T-Mobile-Sprint merger litigation may serve as a guide. After Trump’s DOJ approved the merger, some states settled their cases, but others continued a fight to block the merger. In the end, however, they failed — a court let the merger close anyway.

States could be more aggressive in pursuing the Live Nation-Ticketmaster trial. The company has been widely criticized by musicians and concertgoers alike, including after infamously bungling a Taylor Swift ticket presale in 2022. In an interview with Bloomberg, attorneys general for California and Connecticut said they’d maintain a high bar for settling. “Any resolution that is politically motivated or impacted, or any settlement that comes from trying to placate the president or meet his demands is not likely to fly with Connecticut or California either,” Connecticut AG William Tong said.

In fact, citizen complaints about Ticketmaster are among the top 10 things state AGs commonly hear about, according to Cooley. “That’s something that the state AGs are going to be really paying attention to.”