Steve Marshall joins 18 attorneys general who want California’s emissions rule for trucks reversed
Nineteen attorneys general are challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to allow California to enforce its own regulations requiring zero-emission heavy-duty trucks. In 2021, the California Air Resources Board requested the EPA waive regulations in the federal Clean Air Act. The EPA approved the waiver in March. Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the EPA’s decision allowed his state to be the world’s first government to require zero-emission trucks and paved the way for clean trucks and buses across the globe. California’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule requires manufacturers to have 40% of semi-tractor sales to be zero-emissions by 2035. All heavy-duty vehicles in California must have no carbon exhaust emissions, wherever feasible, by 2045. Last week, Republican Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird led a coalition of 19 states challenging the EPA’s decision. “The EPA and California have no right or legal justification to force truckers to follow their radical climate agenda,” Bird said in a statement. “America would grind to a halt without truckers who deliver our food, clothes and other necessities.” Eight other states have moved to adopt or are working to adopt California’s truck regulations, according to Newsom’s office. In 1967, Congress created a waiver provision for state regulations and it was amended in 1990 to include emissions. The Clean Air Act stated there would be only two ways to enforce emission standards from new motor vehicles – EPA regulations and California laws. Other states can only adopt standards identical to California. “This statutory scheme struck an important balance that protected manufacturers from multiple and different state emission standards, while preserving California’s pivotal role as a laboratory for innovation in the control of emissions from new motor vehicles,” Michael Regan, EPA administrator, wrote in a 38-page article published in the Federal Register in April. “Congress recognized that California could serve as a pioneer and a laboratory for the nation in setting new motor vehicle emission standards and the development of new emission control technologies.” “Further, Congress intentionally structured this waiver provision to restrict and limit EPA’s ability to deny a waiver,” he added. “The provision was designed to ensure California’s broad discretion to determine the best means to protect the health and welfare of its citizens.” The attorneys general argue California’s regulations will increase operating costs for the truck industry, lower demand for diesel and biodiesel, and eliminate jobs. “Joe Biden is partnering with California to attempt to upend Missouri’s economy through the federal administrative state, and my office isn’t going to stand for it,” Republican Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said in a statement. Joining Iowa in the petition to the U.S. District Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia are Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Here are the restrictions on transgender people that are moving forward in U.S. states
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has highlighted efforts by Republican governors and statehouses across the country to embrace proposals limiting the rights of transgender people, signing new restrictions as he moves closer to a presidential bid. The restrictions are spreading quickly despite criticism from medical groups and advocates who say they’re further marginalizing transgender youth and threatening their health. Here’s what’s happening: FLORIDA’S RESTRICTIONS DeSantis on Wednesday signed bills that ban gender-affirming care for minors, restrict pronoun use in schools, and force people to use the bathroom corresponding with their sex assigned at birth in some cases. DeSantis also signed new restrictions on drag shows that would allow the state to revoke the food and beverage licenses of businesses that admit children to adult performances. The DeSantis administration has moved to pull the liquor licenses of businesses that held drag shows, alleging children were present during lewd displays. The rules on gender-affirming care also ban the use of state money for the care and place new restrictions on adults seeking treatment. They take effect immediately, along with the drag show restrictions. The bathroom and pronoun restrictions take effect July 1. DeSantis has been an outspoken advocate for such restrictions and championed a Florida law that restricts the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools. Florida has expanded that prohibition, which critics have dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” law, to all grades. WHERE BANS STAND NATIONALLY Hundreds of bills have been proposed this year restricting the rights of transgender people, and LGBTQ+ advocates say they’ve seen a record number of such measures in statehouses. At least 17 states have now enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Federal judges have blocked enforcement of laws in Alabama and Arkansas, and several other states are considering bills this year to restrict or ban care. Proposed bans are also pending before Texas and Missouri’s governors. These bans have spread quickly, with only three states enacting such laws before this year. Before DeSantis signed the latest ban, Florida was one of two states that had restricted care via regulations or administrative action. Texas’s governor has ordered child welfare officials to investigate reports of children receiving such care as child abuse, though a judge has blocked those investigations. Three transgender youth and their parents who are suing to block Florida’s earlier ban on the care for minors expanded their challenge on Wednesday to include the prohibition DeSantis signed into law. Every major medical organization, including the American Medical Association, has opposed the bans and supported the medical care for youth when administered appropriately. Lawsuits have been filed in several of the states where the bans have been enacted this year. STATES POISED TO ACT A proposed ban on gender-affirming care for minors is awaiting action before Republican Gov. Mike Parson in Missouri. The state’s Republican attorney general, Andrew Bailey, this week withdrew a rule he had proposed that would have gone further by also restricting access to care for adults. Bailey cited the bill pending before Parson as a reason for eliminating the rule, which had been blocked by a state judge. Nebraska Republicans on Tuesday folded a 12-week abortion ban into a bill that would ban gender-affirming care for minors, potentially clearing the way for a final vote on the combined measure as early as this week. Not all states are adopting restrictions, and some Democrat-led states are enacting measures aimed at protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ youth. Michigan Democrats plan to introduce legislation Thursday that would ban conversion therapy for minors, a discredited practice of trying to “convert” people to heterosexuality. The legislation is expected to move quickly with Democrats in control of all levels of state government. Democratic state Rep. Jason Hoskins, a sponsor of the bill, told The Associated Press that he hopes the legislation passes by the end of June, which is Pride Month. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
20 AGs join Bishops in condemning FBI memo profiling ‘Latin Mass’ Catholics
Missouri Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey and 19 other attorneys general joined Catholic Bishops protesting religious profiling in a leaked Federal Bureau of Investigation memo. Last week, an FBI internal memorandum dated January 23 was published by Undercover DC, an investigative journalism organization. It mentioned Virginia Catholics, specifically traditional Catholics, some of whom are not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, according to information from the Catholic Diocese of Richmond. The attorneys general seven-page letter of complaint was addressed to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray. The letter states the FBI memo “identifies ‘radical-traditionalist Catholics’ as a potential’ racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists.’… Among those beliefs which distinguish the bad Catholics from the good ones are a preference for ‘the Traditional Latin Mass and pre-Vatican II teachings,’ and adherence to traditional Catholic teachings on sex and marriage (which the memorandum describes as ‘anti-LGBTQ’).” In 2021, Pope Francis ended pre-Vatican II Traditional Latin Masses, stating the liturgies were dividing the Catholic Church. Last week, New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Religious Liberty Chairman of the U.S. Catholic Council of Bishops, criticized the FBI memorandum. Dolan agreed with a statement made a day earlier by Bishop Barry Knestout of the Diocese of Richmond. “Let me first be clear: anyone who espouses racism or promotes violence is rejecting Catholic teaching on the inherent dignity of each and every person,” Dolan’s statement said. “The USCCB roundly condemns such extremism and fully supports the work of law enforcement officials to keep our communities safe. “I agree with my brother Bishop Barry Knestout that the leaked memorandum was nonetheless ‘troubling and offensive’ in several respects – such as in its religious profiling and reliance on dubious sourcing – and am glad it has been rescinded. We encourage federal law enforcement authorities to take appropriate measures to ensure the problematic aspects of the memo do not recur in any of their agencies’ work going forward.” The Catholic News Agency received a response from the FBI confirming the document came from the Richmond office, and it was being removed. “While our standard practice is to not comment on specific intelligence products, this particular field office product – disseminated only within the FBI – regarding racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism does not meet the exacting standards of the FBI,” according to the FBI statement published by the Catholic News Agency. Bailey said the FBI action was another attack on the First Amendment by President Joe Biden, who is a practicing Catholic. “We already knew that President Biden was launching an attack on the First Amendment rights of Americans, as evidenced by our landmark free speech case Missouri v. Biden, but now it’s clear that he’ll weaponize unelected federal bureaucrats to go after any American who doesn’t worship the ‘right way,’” Bailey said in a statement. “The First Amendment includes both the right to free speech and religious liberty for a reason, and my office will use any tool necessary to defend the rights of all Missourians to worship as they please.” On Saturday, Bishop David O’Connell, 69, of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, was found shot to death inside his Hacienda Heights home. Several media outlets reported law enforcement agencies were treating the case as a homicide and didn’t know of a motive. Several media outlets reported an arrest was made today in the case. Joining Bailey were AGs from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Two dozen AGs sue Joe Biden’s ATF for taxing, registering pistol braces
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey joined 24 other attorneys general in suing President Joe Biden’s administration for implementing a rule outlawing pistol braces. The regulation will “result in the destruction or forfeiture of over 750,000 firearms and will cost the private sector somewhere between $2 and $5 billion,” according to the filing. “As Attorney General, I will defend the Constitution, which includes holding the Biden Administration accountable for blatantly violating the Second Amendment,” Bailey said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “I have long held that the Constitution was meant to be a floor, not a ceiling, and the Second Amendment is the amendment that makes all of the others possible.” The complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed in the U.S. District Court in North Dakota. The document includes information from a patent for a “Pistol Stabilizing Brace,” used to secure a pistol to a shooter’s forearm to stabilize firing. “Through this design, braces are orthotic devices that allow users to more safely and accurately fire handguns,” the document states. Braces are often used by older people and those with limited mobility and prevent recoil and help with accuracy. The lawsuit states President Biden was frustrated in 2021 with congressional inaction and ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to abandon “a decade of practice under an established statutory framework” and place pistols modified with stabilizing braces under the National Firearms Act. The classification requires owners of a pistol with a stabilizing brace to pay a $200 fee and submit their name and other identifying information to the Justice Department or face criminal penalties, the lawsuit states. The Department of Justice proposed amending ATF regulations in 2021 to clarify when a rifle is “intended to be fired from the shoulder.” The DOJ requested comment on whether firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” should be considered a rifle or short-barreled rifle under the Gun Control Act of 1968 or a rifle or firearm subject to the National Firearms Act. The new ATF rule was enacted on Jan. 31. Joining Bailey in the suit are attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The complaint states the ATF violated the Separation of Powers by implementing the rule and calls the regulation arbitrary and capricious. Last month, a federal appeals court struck down a ban on bump stocks instituted by President Donald Trump after an assailant used it to kill and injure dozens of people in Las Vegas in 2017. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Missouri leads 20 AGs warning Walgreens, CVS about mailing abortion pills
Republican Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and 19 other attorneys general are warning Walgreens and CVS pharmacies that any plans to mail abortion-inducing pills is illegal and unsafe. “As the principal legal and law enforcement officers of our 20 states, we offer you these thoughts on the current legal landscape,” Bailey wrote. In late January, the Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone to be used in a regimen with misoprostol “to end an intrauterine pregnancy through 10 weeks gestation.” The drugs must be dispensed or under the supervision of a certified prescriber or pharmacy and “may be dispensed in-person or by mail,” according to the FDA website. In late December, the Department of Justice published a 21-page memorandum for the U.S. Postal Service stating “no matter where the drugs are delivered, a variety of uses of mifepristone and misoprostol serve important medical purposes and are lawful under federal and state law.” The document said the USPS couldn’t assume the drugs can’t be mailed because “they are being sent into a jurisdiction that significantly restricts abortion.” CVS and Walgreens recently announced they are seeking certification from the FDA to sell and mail the pills, according to multiple media reports. “As Attorney General, it is my responsibility to enforce the laws as written, and that includes enforcing the very laws that protect Missouri’s women and unborn children,” Bailey said in a statement. “My office is doing everything in its power to inform these companies of the law, with the promise that we will use every tool at our disposal to uphold the law if broken.” Missouri became the first state to end elective abortions when a “trigger law” was executed hours after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June. In addition to prohibiting doctors from performing abortions unless there is a medical emergency, Missouri law states, “any person who knowingly performs or induces an abortion of an unborn child in violation of this subsection shall be guilty of a class B felony, as well as subject to suspension or revocation of his or her professional license by his or her professional licensing board.” Bailey’s letter to the companies stated Missouri law prohibits “using the mail to send or receive abortion drugs.” Bailey referred to research published by Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSRH) stating medication abortions were 5.96 times as likely to result in a complication as first-trimester aspiration abortions. (When the Supreme Court ruled last June, ANSRH stated the decision contradicted scientific evidence and said it “stands against this decision as one that will have devastating consequences to people’s lives and their families.”) “And finally,” Bailey wrote, “mail-order abortion pills also invite the horror of an increase in coerced abortions. When abortion drugs are mailed or consumed outside a regulated medical facility, the risk of coercion is much higher – indeed, guaranteed – because there is no oversight. Outside the regulated medical context, a person can obtain an abortion pill quite easily and then coerce a woman into taking it.” The attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia signed Bailey’s letter. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Steve Marshall joins lawsuit over Labor Department’s new ESG rule
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall joined 24 other attorneys general last week in a lawsuit opposing a U.S. Department of Labor rule allowing 401(k) managers to direct their clients’ money to ESG (Environmental, Social, & Governance) investments. The conservative AGs are concerned that the rule undermines the protections for retirees outlined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). “Yet again, the Biden Administration is attempting to promote its radical climate agenda at the expense of everyday Americans and their hard-earned money,” AG Marshall stated. “With growing fears of a possible recession and rampant inflation, it is unconscionable to permit asset managers to risk trillions of dollars in working-class Americans’ retirement savings in pursuit of an unrealistic and radical environmental agenda. And that is exactly what the Biden Administration intends to do.” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said, “As Attorney General, I will enforce the law as written, which includes holding the Biden Administration accountable for blatantly violating rules set forth by Congress. My Office will do everything in its power to ensure that Missourians’ hard-earned savings are not diverted by the Biden administration to fund a radical environment ideology.” The controversial new rule, “Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights,” took effect on January 30, 2023. The rule affects two-thirds of the U.S. population’s retirement savings accounts. It impacts 152 million American workers and $12 trillion in assets. The strict laws placed in ERISA are intended to protect retirement savings from unnecessary risk. The conservative AGs claim that the rule makes it easier for advisors to invest based on their political goals rather than their clients’ financial goals. The complaint states, “[T]he 2022 Investment Duties Rule makes changes that authorize fiduciaries to consider and promote ‘nonpecuniary benefits’ when making investment decisions. Contrary to Congress’s clear intent, these changes make it easier for fiduciaries to act with mixed motives. They also make it harder for beneficiaries to police such conduct.” The 24 other states joining the lawsuit are Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The Biden administration is reportedly pushing environmental, social, and governance investing, which allows retirement fund managers to select stocks of companies based on their positions on social and environmental issues. This means that retirement savings will be used as leverage to force companies to reduce their carbon emissions and establish racial and gender quotas and other social justice issues rather than focusing entirely on securing as high a return as possible on workers’ lifetime savings. Marshall was recently inaugurated for his second full term as Alabama’s attorney general. Marshall was appointed AG by then-Gov. Robert Bentley in 2017. Marshall was the long-time district attorney for Marshall County. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
