Steve Marshall joins 20 Attorneys General calling for U.S. Supreme Court to uphold immigration law
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich is leading a group of 21 attorneys general in an amicus brief regarding federal immigration law. The attorneys general are asking the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold a federal statute to enforce federal immigration law in United States v. Hansen. “In the middle of this man-made disaster at our southern border, we need every tool and law available,” Arizona Attorney General Brnovich said in a press release. “The last thing we need is anyone incentivizing migrants to come here illegally and further straining our social safety net. Border communities are being overwhelmed by the influx of people.” A grand jury charged California resident Helaman Hansen with multiple crimes in 2017 for scamming hundreds of noncitizens out of more than $1 million by promising them a nonexistent path to citizenship. According to the release, Hansen was charged under a federal statute for encouraging people to come to the United States illegally for “commercial advantage or private financial gain,” according to the release. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals then struck down the statute arguing that the words “encourage” and “induce,” in the law are too broad. General Brnovich and the attorneys general argue in their amicus brief that the Ninth Circuit decision jeopardizes the constitutionality of criminal law in all 50 states. They worry that the decision may cause other state and federal courts to invalidate existing criminal laws. The other attorneys general who signed the brief is from the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Lawsuit aims to cleanse federal regulations hampering washing machines, dishwashers
Twelve attorneys general filed an opening brief Friday in a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for changes made this year to energy and water efficiency standards for dishwashers and washing machines. “These arbitrary washing machine regulations are unlawful, ineffective, and absolutely ridiculous,” Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, co-leader of a suit in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals against the DOE and Secretary Jennifer Granholm, said in a statement. “They should be hung out to dry as soon as possible.” The DOE regulates energy efficiency and water conservation in products through the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). In 2020, new rules were implemented after consumers complained dishwashers and washing machines ran poorly because of DOE regulations. Previous regulations required appliances to run slower to be more energy efficient. However, no energy was saved as consumers often ran their machines twice to attain adequate cleaning results. In February, the DOE instituted the “Energy Conservation Program: Product Classes for Residential Dishwashers, Residential Clothes Washers, and Consumer Clothes Dryers.” It replaced the 2020 regulations with new rules requiring shorter wash times for washing machines and mandated cycle times for dishwashers be 60 minutes or less. “This is a prime example of the administrative state acting with too much power,” Missouri Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt said in a statement. “The Department of Energy shouldn’t be able to dictate what laundry machines people buy, and they really shouldn’t enact such insane emissions standards that Missourians have to run their dishwashers twice.” In addition to Missouri and Arizona, the attorney generals in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah joined the suit. The 83-page legal brief filed today argues the DOE rule violates the EPCA and is arbitrary and capricious. The plaintiffs contend the DOE failed to adequately explain the change in policy and supply enough rationale for the department’s refusal to create specific standards for performance classes. The attorneys general stated the DOE doesn’t understand its own authority. “… DOE can never create a new class with lower efficiency standards not withstanding Congress’s explicit grant of authority to adopt new classes with ‘higher or lower efficiency standards. That tyranny-of-mediocrity construction violates the underlying statute, and the 2022 rule should therefore be set aside.” Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Federal judge blocks Biden administration from ending Title 42 immigration enforcement
A federal judge in Louisiana on Monday blocked the Biden administration from ending the enforcement of a COVID-era policy that allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents to quickly deport illegal immigrants over health concerns during the pandemic. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced on April 1 that it was ending Title 42 enforcement on May 23, raising significant concerns among both Republicans and a growing number of Democrats that already inflated numbers of illegal border crossings under the Biden administration would spike even further. Shortly after the CDC announcement, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt sued. The attorneys general from 18 other states have since joined the lawsuit. A hearing was held Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, and Judge Robert Summerhays said he was issuing a temporary restraining order against the administration. “For the reasons stated on the record, the Court announced its intent to grant the motion,” the judge said. “The parties will confer regarding the specific terms to be contained in the Temporary Restraining Order and attempt to reach agreement.” After the ruling, Louisiana AG Landry called ending Title 42 enforcement an “enormous threat.” “Joe Biden’s reckless decision to rescind Title 42 would have flooded our already stressed southern border with illegal immigrants,” Landry said in a statement. “Fortunately, today a judge has granted our request to halt this enormous threat to our national security. We will continue to ensure that citizenship means something and that those in this country illegally are not conferred greater rights than our citizens.” Before Monday’s ruling, the Department of Homeland Security said it was putting in place measures to prepare for up to 18,000 people a day to illegally cross Mexico’s border with the U.S. once Title 42 was lifted. This estimate is in addition to the roughly 2 million people who were apprehended or encountered by Border Patrol agents in Biden’s first year in office while Title 42 was in place. All encounter numbers exclude “gotaways,” those who evade capture and don’t surrender at ports of entry. Schmitt also hailed the decision. “This is a huge victory for border security, but the fight continues on,” he tweeted. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Alabama joins 24 states to urge Supreme Court to hear case challenging Maryland’s strict firearm laws
Twenty-five states, led by Arizona and West Virginia, are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Bianchi v. Frosh, which challenges Maryland’s restrictive Firearms Safety Act of 2013. They’re asking the court to ultimately strike down the law, which the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld last September, in a brief filed with the Supreme Court in support of the petitioners. On Jan. 14, the Supreme Court ordered Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, a Democrat, to file a response to a petition filed by the plaintiffs last December. At issue is, “Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with a type of ‘Arms’ that are in common use for lawful purposes?” Maryland’s 2013 law, one of the strictest in the country, requires residents to undergo safety training and fingerprinting in order to get a license to legally purchase a pistol. It also attempts to define assault weapons, generally prohibits the sale, transfer, or receipt of semi-automatic weapons, including the AR-15 and similar rifles, and restricts magazine capacity to 10 rounds of ammunition. The law also bans firearms that have features like folding stocks and flash hiders, which the 25 states argue provide additional structural support for safer use. The Center for American Progress says the law has made Maryland safer. Still, Maryland gun control advocates are pushing for even more gun restrictions to be passed. The 2013 law “goes against Supreme Court precedent and steps on the Second Amendment,” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey argues. “Law-abiding gun owners routinely use these firearms for self-defense or sporting. Such an unconstitutional act cannot stand.” If the Fourth Circuit’s decision isn’t overruled by the Supreme Court, it would set case law governing any similar law passed in West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, the attorneys general argue. The lower court “inappropriately limited the scope of the Second Amendment by taking an earlier Supreme Court ruling out of context,” the AGs argue. They’re referring to the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Americans who aren’t in the military or in a militia have the right to possess firearms for lawful purposes. The AGs argue the ruling should be clarified to extend to sporting rifles, including AR-15s, in “common use.” “Americans bearing these firearms benefit public safety, counterbalance the threat of illegal gun violence, and help make our streets safer,” Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich said. “Arizona and forty-two other states allow the commonly-used firearms that Maryland has banned outright.” Joining Arizona and West Virginia are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. Kansas AG Derek Schmidt, a strong Second Amendment defender, told The Center Square that he was pleased that the high court recognized the Second Amendment was a fundamental right in Heller and extended that in McDonald v. Chicago (2010). But after these court cases, “the high court largely went silent on the Second Amendment,” he said, “for the better part of a decade.” “We tried repeatedly to persuade them to hear other challenges,” and the latest in that effort is requesting the court to hear the Maryland case, he said. The state of Maryland “has essentially enumerated large specific lists of firearms that are not to be permitted as lawful to possess. We don’t think that approach is permissible under the Second Amendment,” Schmidt said. “We don’t think that political actors, legislatures get to pick and choose which weapons in common use are available to Americans, and we’ve asked the Supreme Court to take the case and give us greater definition. I’m hopeful that they will.” The Supreme Court’s recent order indicates that at least one justice on the bench wants a response and “likely means that the court will hold this petition pending a decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen,” Maryland Shall Issue, an all-volunteer, non-partisan organization committed to defending the Second Amendment, argues. The Supreme Court is currently considering the constitutionality of New York’s “good cause” requirement for carry permits in a case it agreed to hear last year. “Holding Bianchi would be consistent with the hold that the Court has apparently placed on the petition filed in the New Jersey’ large-capacity magazine’ case, ANJRPC v. Bruck,” the group adds. That cases’ petition has been pending in the Supreme Court since April 2021. “All of this is good news,” Maryland Shall Issue says. “A decision in Bruen this spring may mean that the court will thereafter vacate the lower court decisions in both Bianchi and ANJRPC and remand for further consideration in light of Bruen. At least, we hope that is the outcome.” By Bethany Blankley | The Center Square contributor Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Voting rights ruling increases pressure on Democrats to act
Congressional Democrats are facing renewed pressure to pass legislation that would protect voting rights after a Supreme Court ruling Thursday made it harder to challenge Republican efforts to limit ballot access in many states. The 6-3 ruling on a case out of Arizona was the second time in a decade that conservatives on the Supreme Court have weakened components of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a landmark Civil Rights-era law. But this opinion was released in a much different political climate, in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s lie that last year’s election was stolen. Trump’s fabrications spurred Republicans in states such as Georgia and Florida to pass tougher rules on voting under the cloak of election integrity. Democrats on Capitol Hill have already tried to respond with a sweeping voting and elections bill that Senate Republicans united to block last week. A separate bill, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore sections of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court previously weakened, has been similarly dismissed by most Republicans. Those setbacks, combined with the Supreme Court’s decision, have fueled a sense of urgency among Democrats to act while they still have narrow majorities in the House and Senate. But passing voting legislation at this point would almost certainly require changes to the filibuster, allowing Democrats to act without GOP support. “Absolutely this increases the pressure to take a very hard look at whether the Senate is an institution that will allow itself to be rendered powerless and dysfunctional,” said Rep. John Sarbanes, a Maryland Democrat who sponsored a voting bill that passed the House in March. Change won’t be easy. A group of moderate Democratic senators, including Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have ruled out revisions to the filibuster. In an evenly divided Senate, their rejection denies the votes needed to move forward with a procedural change. Thursday’s ruling was on a case in Sinema’s home state. In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the court reversed an appellate ruling in deciding that Arizona’s regulations — on who can return early ballots for another person and on refusing to count ballots cast in the wrong precinct — are not racially discriminatory. Sinema assailed the decision in a statement, saying it would “hurt Arizonans’ ability to make their voices heard at the ballot box.” She reiterated her support for the bill yet said nothing about her opposition to the filibuster changes. That opposition stands in the way of the bill passing. Democrats, who say the issue is an existential one for democracy and who need the support of voters of color in next year’s midterms, quickly condemned the decision. “If you believe in open and fair democracy and the principle of one person, one vote, today is one of the darkest days in all of the Supreme Court’s history,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the ruling an “unprecedented assault” that “greenlights the brutal, accelerating campaign of voter suppression.” Speaking in Florida, President Joe Biden said he would have “much more to say” soon, but largely sidestepped comment. For their part, Republicans show no sign of willingness to engage with Democrats on the issue. “The states created the federal government, and it’s not up to Chuck or Nancy or anyone else in Washington, D.C., to tell Arizona or anyone else how they should conduct an election,” Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who was a party in the case, said on Fox News. Many Republicans other have dismissed a series of recent hearings on the John Lewis bill as “theater.” “They are using this issue because they see a political opportunity,” said Rep. Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican who sits on the House Judiciary Committee. “The more they advance this narrative that it’s us versus them, and oppressors versus the oppressed, and black versus white, it divides the country.” Questions hang over existing lawsuits challenging voting laws. While experts generally agree that Thursday’s decision will make legal challenges under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act more difficult, many of the lawsuits pending against GOP-backed laws this year make separate, constitutional claims. So those lawsuits will proceed. The U.S. Justice Department’s recent lawsuit against Georgia’s new voting law does make a Section 2 challenge, although it was narrowly written and alleges an intent by Republican state lawmakers to discriminate against minority voters. In the Arizona case, the legal challenge centered on whether there was a discriminatory effect of the laws. Still, advocates of voting rights protections were surprised by the breadth of the ruling. “This ruling is much worse than we had anticipated,” said Wendy Weiser, an attorney for the Brennan Center for Justice. “This is going to put a lot of pressure on Congress and the White House to pass the voting bills.” And it could embolden more Republican-led states to pursue further restrictions. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, who supports the ruling, said: “States can be confident that they can go full speed ahead to strengthen elections and protect voting rights with security measures such as voter ID and other sensible measures to make it harder to steal elections.” Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Steve Marshall joins 20 other leaders, urging clarity in COVID-19 Act
Attorney General Steve Marshall signed a letter today asking the U.S. Department of Treasury to take action to ensure that the American Rescue Plan Act doesn’t take away a state’s authority to implement state tax policy. Also signing the letter were attorneys general from Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. Leaders warn that certain provisions of the Act forbid states from using COVID-19 relief funds to “directly or indirectly offset a reduction in…net tax revenues” resulting from state laws or regulations that reduce tax burdens, whether by cutting rates or by giving rebates, deductions, credits, “or otherwise.” This language could be used to deny the states the ability to cut taxes in any manner, even if they would have provided tax relief with or without the prospect of COVID-19 relief funds. The attorneys general have requested that the Treasury use a more sensible interpretation of the language in the Act because if not, it could be seen as an intrusion on the sovereignty of the States. Attorney General Mark Brnovich stated, “A view of state tax policy this expansive by the federal government would not only be a giant overreach, but it would represent an unprecedented and unconstitutional infringement upon Arizona’s sovereignty,” said Attorney General Mark Brnovich. “The pandemic has wreaked havoc on the economy, and states like Arizona must be independent and free to determine their own tax policies without the threat of losing federal funds.” Brnovich wants the Treasury to clarify their interpretation of this language by March 23. He wants to ensure that the Act doesn’t stop states from providing tax relief and will take further action if clarity isn’t provided. A copy of the letter can be viewed here. 21 AG’s are urging the US Treasury to take immediate action to ensure the American Rescue Plan Act does not strip States of their core authority to implement basic state tax policy. View letter here: https://t.co/qUod6HeMOH — Mark Brnovich (@GeneralBrnovich) March 16, 2021
Republican attorneys general support citizenship question on census
A Trump administration plan to ask people if they are U.S. citizens during the 2020 census has prompted a legal uproar from Democratic state attorneys general, who argue it could drive down participation and lead to an inaccurate count. Yet not a single Republican attorney general has sued — not even from states with large immigrant populations that stand to lose if a census undercount of immigrants affects the allotment of U.S. House seats and federal funding for states. In fact, many GOP attorneys general had urged Trump’s census team to add a citizenship question. “We always are better off having a more accurate count of citizens versus non-citizens. I see no downside in this,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, vice chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association. The diverging views of top Republican and Democratic state attorneys highlight how even the most basic data collection decisions can quickly split along partisan lines amid the intense debate about immigration policies. Concerns among immigrants have risen as President Donald Trump’s administration has cracked down on so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, increased arrests by federal immigration officers, called the National Guard to the border with Mexico and sought to limit travel to the U.S. from certain predominantly Muslim countries. U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced last month that the 2020 census distributed to every U.S. household will include a citizenship question for the first time since 1950. He said the question was needed in part to help the government enforce the Voting Rights Act, the 1965 law that was intended to protect the political representation of minority groups. He said it will provide a more accurate tally of voting-eligible residents than is currently available from a smaller sampling survey that includes the citizenship question. In a letter explaining his decision, Ross said the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that as many as 630,000 additional households might not respond if a citizenship question is included. Yet he acknowledged the administration did not know what the actual consequences might be because it hasn’t tested the change. The nation’s only dress rehearsal for the 2020 census, currently taking place in Providence, Rhode Island, does not include the citizenship question on the survey forwarded to residents. Nevertheless, Ross determined the benefits of including the question outweigh any concerns. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, filed a federal lawsuit immediately after Ross announced the question would be added. The nation’s most populous state also has the highest number of foreign-born residents, most of whom are naturalized U.S. citizens or hold some other legal status. Last week, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman led a coalition of 17 Democratic attorneys general, the District of Columbia, six cities and the bipartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors in filing a second federal lawsuit. They contend the citizenship question will deter participation and illegally inhibit the Constitution’s requirement for an “actual enumeration” of residents. A third lawsuit was filed this past week by a group of seven Maryland and Arizona residents who say adding the question could lead to an undercount that could diminish federal funding and congressional representation for their states. The Constitution requires representation in the U.S. House to be based on a count of the total residents in each state, not just citizens. The census, undertaken every 10 years, also is used to determine how much money to distribute to local communities through various federal programs. “If we don’t count all the people who live in our city — all the residents we have — it could mean that our community doesn’t get our fair share of moneys or aid,” said Steve Adler, mayor of Austin, Texas, and a Democrat who is on the board of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. “It could also mean that we don’t get the representation in government at all levels. The impacts could be huge.” The George Washington University Institute of Public Policy recently analyzed how a hypothetical 1 percent undercount beyond the figures reported in the 2010 census would have affected 2015 federal funding for Medicaid and several other social programs in each state, assuming the undercount occurred only in that state. The largest financial hits would have been to the Republican-led states of Texas, Florida and Ohio, the swing state of Pennsylvania and the traditionally Democratic state of Illinois, the report found. Democratic-led California and New York would not have been affected because their Medicaid reimbursement rates already are at minimum levels. Estimates of those living in the U.S. illegally range from 11 million to a little over 12 million people. Census data is not shared with immigration enforcement authorities. Yet immigrant advocates believe a citizenship question could discourage even some who are lawfully present from responding, partly because of fears the government could track down relatives living in the U.S. illegally. The U.S. has about 44 million residents who were not citizens at birth, comprising 13.5 percent of the total population, according to the most recent Census Bureau information. More than half of all immigrants live in California, Texas, New York or Florida. Last week, a Democratic state senator in Florida formally asked the state’s attorney general, Republican Pam Bondi, to join the New York lawsuit challenging the citizenship question. That’s unlikely because Bondi was among 11 Republican state attorneys general and two governors who signed a March 13 letter urging the Commerce Department to include a citizenship question. Minority Democrats in the Arizona Legislature also urged GOP Attorney General Mark Brnovich to join the lawsuit. But his spokesman said that won’t happen, just as he refused to sign onto the Republican letter urging the question be included. “We have concerns this issue has been overly politicized,” Brnovich spokesman Ryan Anderson said in a statement. The letter from Republican state officials said a census citizenship question could help minority communities by allowing those drawing legislative districts to ensure there are enough voting-eligible citizens in a particular district for minorities to be able to elect a candidate of their choice under
