The U.S. Department of Justice may be working to settle its antitrust challenge against Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks, but a growing coalition of states is demanding to join the fight.

On Tuesday, twelve attorneys general — representing New York, California, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, and others — filed a motion to intervene in the California federal court case, signaling deep concern that the proposed settlement could be too lenient.

While federal regulators appear ready to approve the merger with conditions requiring Juniper to divest its Wi-Fi network business, the states argue that’s not enough to protect consumers or ensure fair competition.

Bonta Slams Alleged “Backroom Deals” in Trump-Era Merger Approval

California Attorney General Rob Bonta didn’t mince words, calling the Justice Department’s past handling of the deal “extremely alarming.”

“Regulators from across the political spectrum have argued that the Trump Administration’s approval of the HPE/Juniper merger is inadequate and potentially the result of backroom deals,” Bonta said. “We must wield the power of our offices for the good of the people — not to line the pockets of friends.”

The states’ filing suggests they want a front-row seat in reviewing the DOJ’s settlement to ensure it passes the Tunney Act test — a judicial review meant to confirm that consent decrees in antitrust cases are in the public interest, not merely political concessions.

States Argue for Transparency and Antitrust Oversight

In their motion, the coalition asserted that states have an inherent duty to enforce Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which forbids mergers that could substantially lessen competition. They emphasized that public trust depends on the integrity of antitrust settlements, especially when the stakes involve multi-billion-dollar mergers affecting key technology markets.

“The states have a strong interest in ensuring antitrust settlements are free from the taint of corruption,” the filing states, adding that their legal questions overlap significantly with the DOJ’s case and the Tunney Act review.

DOJ Warned Merger Would Undermine Innovation

The DOJ’s January lawsuit opposing the HPE–Juniper merger argued that the deal could cripple competition and innovation in the enterprise-grade wireless LAN technology market, which powers critical sectors from hospitals to small businesses.

Regulators warned that combining the two network giants would “significantly reduce competition and weaken innovation” for large-scale networking systems — the digital arteries that keep modern organizations connected.

High-Profile Legal Teams Line Up on Both Sides

The government’s case is led by Michael J. Freeman, Jeremy M. Goldstein, and other top attorneys from the DOJ Antitrust Division.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise is backed by powerhouse firms including Wilkinson Stekloff LLP, Freshfields LLP, and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
Juniper Networks has enlisted Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, with attorneys Steven C. Sunshine and Tara Reinhart leading the defense.

The Next Battle in Big Tech Consolidation

With the DOJ seeking to close the case and a dozen states stepping in to scrutinize the terms, the HPE $14 Billion Juniper Acquisition has become the latest flashpoint in the national debate over Big Tech consolidation and the future of antitrust enforcement.

Whether the court allows the states to intervene — and how far it digs into the DOJ’s settlement — could determine not only the fate of this mega-merger, but also how aggressively future deals in Silicon Valley are policed.