In a significant development for the tech industry, a federal judge in the United States has ruled that Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (HPE) can proceed with integrating Juniper Networks Inc., despite an ongoing legal challenge from a coalition of states. The states, led by Democratic attorneys general, are contesting a controversial settlement HPE reached with the US Justice Department to resolve antitrust concerns over the $14 billion acquisition.
Judge's Bench Ruling Favours HPE
US District Judge Casey Pitts in San Jose, California, made the ruling from the bench on Thursday after hearing arguments. He stated that the states had not presented sufficient evidence to justify an order halting the integration process. Judge Pitts emphasized that for such an order to be granted, there must be a clear demonstration of "irreparable harm to competition" if HPE continues its work. "There is not such a threat," he concluded, adding that a detailed written decision would follow.
HPE's lawyer, Samuel G. Liversidge, informed the court that the integration was already "quite far along," as the deal was officially closed in the summer of 2025. The companies had previously announced plans to release updated integrations of Juniper's Mist software with HPE's Aruba products by late 2026.
The Controversial Settlement and Political Backlash
The core of the dispute lies in a settlement agreement reached in June 2025 between HPE and the Justice Department. The agency had initially sued to block the merger in January 2024, marking the first major antitrust case of the new Trump administration. However, just days before the trial was set to begin, a settlement was announced.
The settlement allowed the deal to proceed with only minor conditions: the divestiture of HPE's Instant On business and a commitment to license certain Juniper technology. This resolution sparked immediate controversy. Allegations emerged that officials in the Trump administration approved the deal after lobbying by individuals close to the president, overriding the recommendations of career antitrust staff.
The controversy deepened when top antitrust officials who opposed the settlement were ousted. One of them publicly accused the HPE agreement of having "perverted justice." This prompted the coalition of states to intervene, using a legal provision that requires judges to assess whether such settlements serve the public interest.
States' Concerns and Judicial Scrutiny
In their legal filings, the states requested Judge Pitts to issue an order preventing HPE from integrating Juniper's Mist software into its Aruba products. Anthony Mariano, an attorney representing Massachusetts, argued that once "consumers start getting locked into new integrated products," reversing the merger becomes exceedingly difficult, and consumers "have lost the benefit of choice."
However, Judge Pitts questioned the breadth of the states' request. He expressed concern that they were seeking "amorphous relief" instead of maintaining a "narrow" focus on the specific enterprise Wi-Fi market where antitrust issues were identified. The judge also noted the lack of clarity on who would bear the financial burden—HPE or its customers—if the integration was later paused or undone.
Echoing the judge's sentiment, HPE's lawyer Liversidge argued that the states' case lacked concrete proof. "There has to be proof," he said. "That is completely missing here." With the judge's ruling, HPE is clear to continue its integration efforts while the states' challenge to the settlement's validity continues on a separate track.
