AGs, industry groups sue feds over new water rule
A group of attorneys general and industry organizations are suing the federal government over a new water protection rule that went into effect last month. The lawsuit asks the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to vacate the 2023 rule, which went into effect on Nov. 27, and block the EPA from enforcing it, leaving a Trump-era rule in place. The EPA says the final rule under the Clean Water Act “enhances certification review and provides regulatory certainty to advance federally permitted projects” by creating a 6-month default timeframe for certification agreements with a one-year maximum for review. “The rule emphasizes that states, territories, and Tribes may only consider the adverse water quality-impacts from the activity,” the EPA said in September. “To limit delays, the rule also provides a clear approach to defining the required contents in a request for certification.” The plaintiffs argue the changes are “sweeping and unlawful.” “The 2023 Water Quality Certification Rule is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of the EPA’s discretion, exceeds the statutory authority on which it relies and is otherwise contrary to law,” the complaint says. The American Petroleum Institute, Interstate National Gas Association of America, and National Hydropower Association are listed as plaintiffs, along with attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming. “The Trump administration’s reforms preserved the role of states in protecting their water quality while stopping states acting in bad faith and abusing the process to achieve unrelated policy goals and stopping or delaying nationally important projects and critical infrastructure,” Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen said in a statement. “In its new rule, [Joe] Biden’s EPA has once again turned the Clean Water Act on its head, ignoring congressional intent and exceeding its authority.” Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
15 states demand Apple, Google relabel TikTok for ‘mature’ content
Attorneys general from 15 states have demanded Apple and Google increase the age-appropriate rating for social media app TikTok from “teen” to “mature” in their online stores or face possible legal action. The demand was made in nearly identical letters to Apple and Google sent on December 13 by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, co-signed by attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Currently, Apple’s App Store labels TikTok as appropriate for “Age 12+ Years Old,” and Google labels it “T” for “Teen” appropriate. Both ratings mean, “Content is generally suitable for ages 13 and up. May contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling and/or infrequent use of strong language,” according to the company’s websites. The AGs contend the content available on TikTok goes well beyond those guidelines and is not suitable for children under age 17. “The TikTok app contains frequent and intense alcohol, tobacco, and drug use or references, sexual content, profanity, and mature/suggestive themes,” the letters state, drawing the conclusion “The TikTok app can only plausibly qualify for an ‘M’ for ‘Mature’ rating.” The Center Square requested comments from both Apple and Google but did not receive a reply. The move comes amid growing pressure on TikTok by state governments over alleged deceptive practices and data security. Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita filed a pair of lawsuits against the app maker on December 8, alleging the company has engaged in deceptive practices aimed at minors in violation of state law by luring children to the platform with misleading messaging about the site’s content, and it deceives consumers into believing their personal information is protected from the Chinese government and Communist Party. TikTok is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance Ltd., also named in the suits. Also December 8, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ordered all Texas state agencies to ban the use of TikTok on any government-issued electronic devices, alleging a growing threat posed by the platform in exposing critical information to the Chinese government. Maryland, Oklahoma, South Dakota, South Carolina, Alabama, North Dakota, and Utah have subsequently banned use of the app on state-owned electronic devices. According to Apple’s App Store, TikTok collects information and “identifiers” in order to track each user and collects other data specifically linked to the user’s identity, including contact information, purchases, financial information, contacts, search history, browsing history, and data usage. As for Apple and Google, the AGs stated both tech giants are partly responsible for any harm caused by the alleged mislabeling of TikTok. The AGs write that Apple and Google share “the responsibility to ensure that apps like TikTok display an accurate age rating to consumers. When parents are deceived into letting their kids download TikTok, there are real consequences. Exposure to drug, alcohol, and tobacco content on social media makes kids more likely to use or experiment with those illicit substances in real life. And exposure to sexual content on TikTok can lead to pornography addiction and even the sexual exploitation of kids by online predators.” The app has been downloaded more than 1 billion times from Google, according to Google Play, and about 70 million times from Apple through April 2002, according to 9to5Mac. The letters conclude with the warning that if Apple and Google do not change their age ratings for TikTok, the attorneys general reserve the right to take legal action against both vendors, including litigation and civil penalties. A spokesperson for TikTok said earlier this month that concerns by state leaders “are largely fueled by misinformation about our company,” The Washington Post reported. The Center Square requested additional comment from ByteDance, but none was received. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Steve Marshall joins 21 attorneys general; file brief with SCOTUS against federal firearm accessory ban
Twenty-two state attorneys general, led by AGs from Montana and West Virginia, have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court over a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule they argue would immediately transform hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners into criminals. Through its rulemaking, the ATF is attempting to regulate bump-stock accessories by claiming that they transform the firearms they attach to into machine guns as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The AGs filed an amicus brief in support of Gun Owners of America, Inc., which sued U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, and are asking the court to hear the case after the full Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was evenly split on the issue. The ATF’s rule is a way for the federal agency to circumvent Congress and rewrite law that only Congress has the authority to do, the AGs argue. “The Final Rule effectively transforms commonly owned firearms into banned machine guns simply because of the use of non-mechanical bump-stock accessories. This interpretation categorically expands the text of the criminal statute in a way that Congress couldn’t possibly have intended,” they argue in their brief. “And it expands criminal liability at the expense of Second Amendment rights, diminishing the latter absent a sufficient and compelling justification. When the ATF – or any agency – invades protected rights by interpreting statutes too broadly, this Court should step in.” A bump stock, or stabilizing brace, isn’t a weapon. It’s a device that attaches to the rear of a pistol and slips around the user’s forearm. They’re often used to reduce recoil, prevent injury, and allow the user to more safely and accurately fire their gun. They don’t transform semi-automatic rifles into automatic machine guns. Tens of millions of stabilizing braces are sold nationwide. “The significance of this case goes beyond any firearm accessory and gun rights. No federal agency should be able to create criminal code without Congressional authorization,” Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen said. “The Supreme Court must take up this important case to uphold the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment and affirm this important check on the federal executive’s power.” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said the ATF doesn’t “get to overrule the Constitutional rights of firearm owners across the nation.” Morrisey also points out that the ATF has recognized that “bump firing” has been around for as long as there have been semi-automatic firearms and common items like rubber bands, belt loops, and shoestrings can all be used to the same effect as bump stocks, which the ATF is attempting to criminalize. “Actions like the ATF’s do not just violate important principles of administrative law. They also illustrate how the government can endanger fundamental rights through creeping, incremental, and seemingly benign regulatory depredations,” the AGs argue in their brief. “If Congress had wanted to categorically expand the NFA to cover semiautomatic firearms that use a bump-stock accessory, it would – and must – have done so explicitly.” Judges on a Sixth Circuit panel ruled against ATF last March, concluding that bump stocks don’t transform commonly used semi-automatic firearms into machine guns. However, when brought before the full Sixth Circuit Court, the judges were evenly split, resulting in the lower district court’s ruling being upheld, allowing the ATF’s rule to stand. Attorneys general from West Virginia, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming signed the amicus brief. Their petition comes after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and more than 140 Republican members of Congress last June took issue with the ATF’s rule change, arguing it violates federal law, contradicts longstanding ATF policy and is unconstitutional. They also argue ATF’s rule change wrongly targets veterans and hurts law-abiding gun owners. Paxton said in a statement that a federal agency “cannot, through the administrative ‘interpretation’ of law, criminalize conduct that will send people to prison. Federal criminal laws must be enacted democratically, with the approval of both houses of Congress and the president.” According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, “there are between 10 and 40 million stabilizing braces and similar components already in civilian hands,” and “[a]ltering the classification of firearms equipped with stabilizing braces would likely affect millions of owners.” Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Thirteen attorneys general sue Joe Biden administration over stimulus tax rule
Attorneys general from 13 states sued President Joe Biden’s administration on Wednesday over a rule in the federal stimulus that bars states from using relief money to offset tax cuts. The filing in U.S. District Court in Alabama asks judges to strike down the provision in the wide-ranging relief act signed by Biden that prohibits states from using $195 billion of federal aid “to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction” in net tax revenue. The restriction could apply through 2024. The coalition, which includes one Democratic attorney general, is concerned the provision can construe any tax cut as taking advantage of the pandemic relief funds. A bigger group of 21 Republican attorneys general earlier this month wrote a letter seeking clarification from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who is named in the new lawsuit. The department at the time said the provision isn’t meant as a blanket prohibition on tax cuts. States can still offset tax reductions through other means. “Nothing in the Act prevents States from enacting a broad variety of tax cuts,” Yellen wrote in a response on April 23. “It simply provides that funding received under the Act may not be used to offset a reduction in net tax revenue resulting from certain changes in state law.” But West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who co-led the lawsuit with his colleagues from Alabama and Arkansas, argues the interpretation of the word “indirectly” in the provision could come back to haunt states that cut taxes. “This ensures our citizens aren’t stuck with an unforeseen bill from the feds years from now,” he said in a statement. Alabama Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall said the “federal tax mandate is an unprecedented and unconstitutional assault on state sovereignty.” Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah also signed onto the lawsuit. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, earlier this month separately asked a federal judge to block the tax-cut provision. Several state legislatures are weighing tax reform this year, which is partly driving the lawsuit. West Virginia lawmakers are hurrying to approve a cut to the state income tax before their 60-day session ends on April 10. Montana’s GOP-controlled statehouse is considering several tax cut bills. Its Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen said “it’s a slap in the face to Montana” to limit how the stimulus funds can be used. Yellen, whose department declined new comment, had said in her letter that “it is well established that Congress may place such reasonable conditions on how States may use federal funding.” The nonprofit Tax Foundation said in a new report this week that it’s more likely the Treasury Department would opt for a “narrow interpretation that does not unduly tie states’ hands” in enforcing the provision. “Most states are likely at minimal risk regardless of the tax policy choices they make,” it said. “For now, however, uncertainty persists, and lawmakers must operate within that uncertainty.” Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
