GOP AGs argue Colorado courts can’t remove Donald Trump from primary ballot
A coalition of 19 attorneys general filed a brief with the Colorado Supreme Court arguing an appeal to keep former President Donald Trump off the primary ballot can’t be decided by the courts. The 41-page brief, led by Republican Attorneys General Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia and Theodore Rokita of Indiana, argues Congress should decide any alleged violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The brief states the “courts have no business second-guessing Congress’s decisions to enforce – or not enforce—the Clause,” referring to the insurrection clause in the amendment. “The Fourteenth Amendment entrusts Insurrection Clause questions to Congress—not state officials or state courts,” the brief states. “The Amendment vests Congress with ‘power to enforce’ the Insurrection Clause ‘by appropriate legislation’ and power to ‘remove [the] disability’ it imposes.” The brief was filed on the same day as a brief by three Republican secretaries of state arguing the case should be dismissed because District Court Judge Sarah Wallace described Trump as an “insurrectionist.” Judge Wallace ruled in favor of Trump earlier this month. Although she wrote Trump’s speech on Jan. 6, 2021, “incited imminent lawless violence,” his words didn’t meet the amendment’s requirement of “engagement.” The attorneys general argue the definition of “insurrection” shouldn’t be decided by the courts. “For example, the term ‘insurrection’ is hardly as well defined as the district court let on,” the brief states. “And allowing each state and its courts to determine eligibility using malleable standards would create an unworkable patchwork of eligibility requirements for President.” “… In truth, an ‘insurrection’ is more serious than the district court’s definition supposes. Where the Constitution uses the term ‘insurrection,’ that term appears alongside terms like ‘invasion’ and ‘rebellion.’” The brief aligns with arguments submitted by the secretaries of state regarding a prediction of “electoral chaos” if a party’s presidential candidate appears on some state primary ballots but not on others. The brief states that Trump’s impeachment by the House of Representatives after Jan. 6, 2021, and subsequent acquittal by the Senate shows Congress hasn’t found him guilty of an infraction under the Constitution. “Congress, then, has rendered its judgment – and it disagrees with petitioners’ view that former President Trump engaged in insurrection,” the brief states. “Petitioners want this Court to try again, but ‘[f]ailure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies.’” Attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming joined Morrisey and Rokita in filing the brief. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump in a similar case, and an appeal in Michigan is ongoing. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Steve Marshall joins 17 AGs, file brief in support of fishermen
Attorneys general from 18 states have filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of New Jersey fishermen challenging a federal regulation requiring them to pay for the cost of monitors who board their vessels during fishing trips. Led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, the attorneys general are urging the nation’s top court to take on the case and give guidance on the “Chevron deference,” a longstanding doctrine that grants federal regulatory agencies powers to issue mandates when Congress has not given clear guidance. Specifically, they’re urging the Supreme Court to either restrict the doctrine “in a way that is consistent with the separation of powers and the principles of federalism” or strike it down. They added a myriad of rulings has created uncertainty over it. “The confused status quo has real costs for the people who live and work within our borders,” the brief states. “Because the problems with Chevron keep multiplying, no one really knows whether it is still viable or how courts should apply its teachings.” The attorneys general filed their brief with the justices Thursday in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises Inc. v. Raimondo. The plaintiffs are challenging a policy set by the New England Fishery Management Council and approved by NOAA Fisheries to not only require at-sea monitors to be stationed on their boats but also pay $700 per day for the monitors. The monitors ensure fishermen comply with federal regulations regarding their harvest. In addition, they also collect scientific and economic data that federal agencies use to manage fisheries. However, the fishermen, represented by the Cause of Action Institute, claim the practice is a federal overreach threatening to put them out of business. Judges at the federal district and appellate levels have ruled in favor of the U.S. government in the case. The fishermen appealed to the Supreme Court last month. Since then, 14 briefs in support of their claims have been filed by nearly 40 groups. “This tremendous support highlights the broad agreement that the Supreme Court needs to revisit Chevron and ensure federal agencies do not usurp the constitutional authorities reserved for Congress and the courts,” James Valvo, executive director of Cause of Action Institute, said in a statement. Besides West Virginia, attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia signed the brief. The federal government has until Jan. 17 to respond to the New Jersey fishermen’s filing. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Steve Marshall joins nine attorneys general to call for state adoption of The Women’s Bill of Rights
Today, ten attorneys general announced their support for the Women’s Bill of Rights (WBOR). The group also is urging other state attorneys general nationwide to pledge their support. In March, the Independent Women’s Voice, the Independent Women’s Law Center (IWLC), and Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) released the WBOR to codify the common definitions of ‘woman,’ ‘girl,’ and ‘mother.’ According to the WBOR, this would “ensure that our country’s laws recognize there are legitimate reasons to distinguish between the sexes with respect to athletics, prisons or other detention facilities, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, locker rooms, restrooms, and other areas where biology, safety, and/or privacy are implicated.” Congress has since introduced H. Res. 1136, sponsored by Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona and co-sponsored by 28 House members, and S. Res. 644, sponsored by Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS) and co-sponsored by Sens. Cynthia Lummis (WY) and Ted Cruz (TX). Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, the first attorney general to support WBOR, said, “Feminism, once understood as the way to promote equality for women, is today disintegrating in an identity crisis of its own making. But it is not only legitimate for women to have a space of their own in which to grow and thrive; it is good for society to carve out that safe space for women to engage with one another in athletics, education, fellowship, and sometimes even in healing.” In April, Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation restricting transgender students from participating in K-12 sports. The bill says a public K-12 school “may never allow a biological male to participate on a female team.” Additionally, a federal appeals court will hear arguments in November over Alabama’s efforts to outlaw the use of gender-affirming medications to treat transgender minors. Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry added, “My mother coached women’s basketball in the ‘70s, and she had to fight for everything for those girls — including simple court time. It’s despicable that radical leftists are jeopardizing the equality that my mom and many other women across the country worked so hard to achieve. Changing the biological definition of a person does not create equity; rather, it creates confusion and harm for all.” “As the first female elected Attorney General of Arkansas, I will do everything in my power to ensure that my daughter and girls across the nation have equal access to athletic, employment, and educational opportunities without being forced to unfairly compete against biological males,” said Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge. “I helped Arkansas lead this effort with the GIRLS Act, and I am proud to join my colleagues in signing the Women’s Bill of Rights.” The following attorneys general pledged their support of the WBOR: Lynn Fitch of Mississippi, Ken Paxton of Texas, Steve Marshall of Alabama, Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Doug Peterson of Nebraska, Sean Reyes of Utah, Austen Knudsen of Montana, Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, and Alan Wilson of South Carolina.
Supreme Court limits EPA in curbing power plant emissions
In a blow to the fight against climate change, the Supreme Court on Thursday limited how the nation’s main anti-air pollution law can be used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. By a 6-3 vote, with conservatives in the majority, the court said that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming. The decision, said environmental advocates and dissenting liberal justices, was a major step in the wrong direction — “a gut punch,” one prominent meteorologist said — at a time of increasing environmental damage attributable to climate change amid dire warnings about the future. The court’s ruling could complicate the administration’s plans to combat climate change. Its detailed proposal to regulate power plant emissions is expected by the end of the year. Though the decision was specific to the EPA, it was in line with the conservative majority’s skepticism of the power of regulatory agencies, and it sent a message on possible future effects beyond climate change and air pollution. The decision put an exclamation point on a court term in which a conservative majority, bolstered by three appointees of former President Donald Trump, also overturned the nearly 50-year-old nationwide right to abortion, expanded gun rights, and issued major religious rights rulings, all over liberal dissents. President Joe Biden aims to cut the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the decade and to have an emissions-free power sector by 2035. Power plants account for roughly 30% of carbon dioxide output. “Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion for the court. But Roberts wrote that the Clean Air Act doesn’t give EPA the authority to do so and that Congress must speak clearly on this subject. “A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” he wrote. In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the decision strips the EPA of the power Congress gave it to respond to “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.” Kagan said the stakes in the case are high. She said, “The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.” Biden, in a statement, called the ruling “another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards.” He said he would “not relent in using my lawful authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis.” And EPA head Michael Regan said his agency will move forward with a rule to impose environmental standards on the energy sector. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who led the legal challenge to EPA authority, said the “EPA can no longer sidestep Congress to exercise broad regulatory power that would radically transform the nation’s energy grid and force states to fundamentally shift their energy portfolios away from coal-fired generation.” But University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd, a past president of the American Meteorological Society, said of the decision: “It feels like a gut punch to critical efforts to combat the climate crisis which has the potential to place lives at risk for decades to come.” Richard Revesz, an environmental expert at the New York University School of Law, called the decision “a significant setback for environmental protection and public health safeguards.” But he also said in a statement that EPA still has authority to address greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. EPA Administrator Regan said the agency “will move forward with lawfully setting and implementing environmental standards that meet our obligation to protect all people and all communities from environmental harm.” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the consequences of Thursday’s decision “will ripple across the entire federal government, from the regulation of food and drugs to our nation’s health care system, all of which will put American lives at risk.” The court held that Congress must speak with specificity when it wants to give an agency authority to regulate on an issue of major national significance. Several conservative justices have criticized what they see as the unchecked power of federal agencies. Those concerns were evident in the court’s orders throwing out two Biden administration policies aimed at reducing the spread of COVID-19. Last summer, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority ended a pause on evictions over unpaid rent. In January, the same six justices blocked a requirement that workers at large employers be vaccinated or test regularly and wear a mask on the job. Underlying all these issues is a lack of action from Congress, reflecting bitter, partisan disagreements over the role of the federal government. On the environment, Biden’s signature plan to address climate, a sweeping social and environmental policy bill known as Build Back Better, is all but dead amid united opposition from congressional Republicans and conservative Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin from coal state West Virginia. Under a trimmed-down version, the legislation backed by Democrats would offer tax credits and spending to boost renewable power such as wind and solar and sharply increase the number of electric vehicles. The justices heard arguments in the case on the same day that a United Nations panel’s report warned that the effects of climate change are about to get much worse, likely making the world sicker, hungrier, poorer, and more dangerous in the coming years. The power plant case has a long and complicated history that begins with the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. That plan would have required states to reduce emissions from the generation of electricity, mainly by shifting away from coal-fired plants. But that plan never took effect. Acting in a lawsuit filed by West Virginia and others, the Supreme Court blocked it in 2016 by a 5-4 vote, with conservatives
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.
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.
Judge blocks tax cut rule in American Rescue Plan
A federal judge has blocked the U.S. Treasury from enforcing a provision of the American Rescue Plan Act that prohibited states from using the pandemic relief funds to offset new tax cuts. U.S. District Judge L. Scott Coogler ruled Monday in Alabama that Congress exceeded its power in putting the so-called tax mandate on states. He entered a final judgment in favor of 13 states that had filed a lawsuit and instructed the Treasury Department not to enforce the provision. The judge left the rest of the law in place. The American Rescue Plan steered $195 billion in flexible relief funds to states but specified that states could not use it as a means to cut taxes by using the federal relief dollars to offset the revenue reduction. The judge described the tax-cut restrictions as “a federal invasion of State sovereignty” that was “unconstitutionally ambiguous” — leaving states guessing as to whether their tax cuts would trigger a repayment of federal funds. “The Tax Mandate’s restriction on direct or indirect state tax cuts pressures States into adopting a particular — and federally preferred — tax policy,” Coogler wrote. That “may disincentive” states “from considering any tax reductions for fear of forfeiting ARPA funds,” The lawsuit was filed by Alabama, Arkansas, Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall called those tax-cut restrictions “an unprecedented and unconstitutional assault on state sovereignty by the federal government.” Officials from other states on Tuesday also praised the ruling. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said the decision “ensures our citizens aren’t stuck with an unforeseen bill from the feds years from now.” Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt said it “clears the way” for the state to pursue a sales tax cut on groceries “without fear of federal reprisal.” Justice Department lawyers representing the Treasury Department argued the money should be used for its intended purpose — pandemic recovery. “Congress did not provide Rescue Plan funds for States to replace purposeful decreases in net tax revenue; it provided the money to help States economically recover from the pandemic in ways they otherwise could not,” federal lawyers wrote in an August court filing. Federal government lawyers added, “states are free to cut all the taxes they want, as long as they do not use the federal aid to ‘offset’ any decreased revenue.” Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
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.
