Attorneys General

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares132 Views

    Four States Ask F.D.A. to Lift Special Restrictions on Abortion Pill

    by

    The states consider it a move to force the F.D.A. to review and acknowledge extensive research showing the pill’s safety.In a strategy aimed at countering efforts to further restrict the abortion pill mifepristone, attorneys general of four states that support abortion rights on Thursday asked the Food and Drug Administration to do the opposite and lift the most stringent remaining restrictions on the pill.The petition filed by Massachusetts, New York, California and New Jersey might seem surprising given the opposition to abortion expressed by Trump administration officials. But the attorneys general consider it a move that would require the F.D.A. to acknowledge extensive scientific research that has consistently found mifepristone safe and effective, said an official with the Massachusetts attorney general’s office who worked on the filing and asked not to be named in order to share background information. It would also prevent the F.D.A. from changing mifepristone regulations while the petition is pending.The petition notes that at a May senate hearing, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health and human services secretary, responded to questions by Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, who opposes abortion, by saying he had ordered the F.D.A. to do a “complete review” of mifepristone.“We want to make sure that when F.D.A. is making these decisions that they have all the data in front of them, all of the really powerful data that show that mifepristone is safe” the Massachusetts official said.The F.D.A. is required to respond within 180 days by granting or denying the request, or saying it needs more time. In its responses, the agency must document its position, which could be useful in lawsuits, including one that the four states could file if their petition is denied.Mifepristone, which blocks a hormone necessary for pregnancy development, was approved for abortion in America in 2000. The F.D.A. imposed an additional regulatory framework called Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, on mifepristone. That framework has been used for only about 300 drugs, currently covering only about 60 medications.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Does Trump Have the Power to Install Jeanine Pirro as Interim U.S. Attorney?

      by

      By using another interim appointment to fill a vacancy for the top prosecutor in Washington, the White House is bypassing Senate confirmation and potentially claiming expansive authority.President Trump’s announcement that he was making the Fox News host Jeanine Pirro the interim U.S. attorney in Washington has raised questions about whether he had legitimate legal authority to do so.Under a federal law, the attorney general can appoint an interim U.S. attorney for up to 120 days. But soon after taking office in January, the Trump administration installed a Republican lawyer and political activist, Ed Martin, in that role.The question is whether presidents are limited to one 120-day window for interim U.S. attorneys, or whether they can continue unilaterally installing such appointees in succession — indefinitely bypassing Senate confirmation as a check on their appointment power. Here is a closer look.What is a U.S. attorney?A U.S. attorney, the chief law enforcement officer in each of the 94 federal judicial districts, wields significant power. That includes the ability to start a criminal prosecution by filing a complaint or by requesting a grand jury indictment. Presidents typically nominate someone to the role who must secure Senate confirmation before taking office.What is an interim U.S. attorney?When the position needs a temporary occupant, a federal statute says the attorney general may appoint an interim U.S. attorney who does not need to undergo Senate confirmation. The statute limits terms to a maximum of 120 days — or fewer, if the Senate confirms a regular U.S. attorney to fill the opening.Is the president limited to one 120-day window?This is unclear. The ambiguity underscores the aggressiveness of Mr. Trump’s move in selecting Ms. Pirro. Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that Democrats on the panel “will be looking into this.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Says One DOGE Member Can Access Sensitive Treasury Dept. Data

      by

      Nineteen state attorneys general had sued to block Elon Musk’s government efficiency team from accessing Treasury systems that include Americans’ bank account and Social Security information.A Manhattan federal judge ruled on Friday that one member of Elon Musk’s government efficiency program could have access to sensitive payment and data systems at the Treasury Department, as long as that person goes through appropriate training and files disclosures.The order by the judge, Jeannette A. Vargas, came nearly two months after she had ruled that Mr. Musk’s team, members of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, would be banished from the agency’s systems until the conclusion of a lawsuit that claims the group’s access is unlawful.Friday night’s order partly dissolves the earlier preliminary injunction by granting Ryan Wunderly, who was hired as a special adviser for information technology and modernization, access to the Treasury systems in dispute, Judge Vargas wrote.To gain the access, however, Mr. Wunderly will have to complete hands-on training “typically required of other Treasury employees granted commensurate access” and submit a financial disclosure report, the judge wrote.The case stems from a lawsuit filed in February by 19 state attorneys general, led by Letitia James of New York, who sued to block the Trump administration’s policy of allowing political appointees and “special government employees” who work with Mr. Musk to access the systems. The systems contain some of the country’s most sensitive information, including Americans’ bank account and Social Security data.The attorneys general argued that only career civil servants who have received training and security clearances should have access. The untrained members of Mr. Musk’s team should not have “unfettered access,” they said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Attorneys General Sue Over Access to $1 Billion in Federal School Aid

      by

      The Trump administration abruptly cut states’ access to Covid pandemic funding for school programs, saying they’d had enough time to spend it.Sixteen attorneys general and a Democratic governor sued the Trump administration on Thursday to restore access to over $1 billion in federal pandemic relief aid for schools that was recently halted, saying that the pullback could cause acute harm to students.The suit, led by New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, and filed in Manhattan federal court, is one of the latest efforts by states to fight President Trump’s clawback of funding allocated to programs he does not want the government to support. The funding was part of a windfall of more than $190 billion that the U.S. Department of Education distributed to schools at the height of the coronavirus pandemic.The government’s reversal “triggered chaos,” the suit says. New York was one of the states with the most unspent money: over $130 million. California had more than $205 million in unspent money, and Maryland had $245 million, the most among the states that sued.“Cutting school systems’ access to vital resources that our students and teachers rely on is outrageous and illegal,” Ms. James said in a news release.The coalition’s filing on Thursday comes nearly a month after 21 Democratic attorneys general sued the administration for firing about half of the Education Department’s staff. Linda McMahon, the education secretary, said the move would help the department deliver services more efficiently.The White House also suspended millions of dollars in teacher-training grants that it argued would promote diversity, equity and inclusion, which prompted yet another suit from New York and other states.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Former Aides to Ken Paxton Win $6.6 Million in Whistle-Blower Case

      by

      A judge found that four whistle-blowers who accused Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, of corruption and reported him to the F.B.I. were unjustly fired.A judge awarded a total of $6.6 million to four former high-level aides to Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, who claimed that they were unduly fired after reporting him to federal investigators and accusing him of corruption in 2020.The plaintiffs — Blake Brickman, Mark Penley, David Maxwell and Ryan Vassar — proved that the attorney general’s office violated the state’s whistle-blower act, Judge Catherine Mauzy of a district court in Travis County ruled on Friday.Each plaintiff was awarded between $1 million and more than $2 million for lost wages, emotional pain, legal fees and other costs associated with the trial.“The Court finds that Plaintiffs have proved liability, damages, and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees by a preponderance of the evidence,” Judge Mauzy wrote in her ruling.Judge Mauzy also noted that Mr. Paxton never disputed any issue or fact in the case, opting not to contest his office’s liability. Mr. Paxton did not testify.Tom Nesbitt, a lawyer for Mr. Brickman, celebrated the decision.“Yesterday’s judgment is the natural and intended consequence of Ken Paxton’s choice to surrender rather than fight the whistle-blowers’ claims in court,” he said in a statement on Saturday.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Loses Bid to Pause Ruling on Federal Funding Freeze

      by

      The ruling let stand a district court judge’s order that had blocked agencies from categorically pausing federal funds based on guidance from the Office of Management and Budget.A federal appeals court on Wednesday left in place a lower court’s ruling that blocked the Office of Management and Budget from enacting a sweeping freeze on federal funding to states, writing that it posed an obvious risk to states that depend on the money.The decision denied a request from the Trump administration to stay a ruling by Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the Federal District Court for the District of Rhode Island this month. Judge McConnell found that the administration had effectively subverted Congress in choking off funds in ways that jeopardized state governments and the services they provide their residents.A coalition of nearly two dozen attorneys general from Democratic-led states had sued in January to halt the freeze. They argued that the funding, including critical disaster relief disbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and early childhood education support provided through Head Start, had all been thrown into doubt.In their opinion, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit wrote that the freeze would cause the states an array of irreparable harms, including forced taking on of debt, “impediments to planning, hiring and operations,” and disruptions to research projects underway at state universities.In its original guidance at issue in the lawsuit, the Office of Management and Budget had advised agencies that the pause pertained only to funding streams that were affected by some of President Trump’s early executive orders, such as those aimed at ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs and climate change funds.The states behind the lawsuit, however, argued that the pause had been conducted chaotically and had caused significant upheaval, preventing them from gaining access to federal grants that seemed to fall outside those orders.As an example, in a filing on Wednesday night, an assistant attorney general from Illinois said that the state was still unable to attain money through the Earthquake State Assistance grant program.In their opinion declining to stay Judge McConnell’s preliminary injunction, the judges wrote that the states had documented numerous cases of “pauses, freezes, and sudden terminations of obligated funds” suggesting that the freeze on federal funds was often indiscriminate. The arbitrary nature of the freeze, they wrote, further suggested that the coalition of states was likely to prevail in the lawsuit. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Democratic Attorneys General Sue Over Gutting of Education Department

      by

      A coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general sued the Trump administration on Thursday, two days after the Education Department fired more than 1,300 workers, purging people who administer grants and track student achievement across America.The group, led by New York’s Letitia James, sued the administration in a Massachusetts federal court, saying that the dismissals were “illegal and unconstitutional.”“Firing half of the Department of Education’s work force will hurt students throughout New York and the nation, especially low-income students and those with disabilities who rely on federal funding,” Ms. James said in a news release. “This outrageous effort to leave students behind and deprive them of a quality education is reckless and illegal.”The cuts to the department’s staff will cause a delay in “nearly every aspect” of the K-12 education in their states, the attorneys general said in their suit. Therefore, the coalition is seeking a court order to stop what it called “policies to dismantle” the agency, arguing that the layoffs are just a first step toward its destruction.“All of President Trump’s executive actions are lawful, constitutional and intended to deliver on the promises he made to the American people,” a White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, said. “Partisan elected officials and judicial activists who seek to legally obstruct President Trump’s agenda are defying the will of 77 million Americans who overwhelmingly re-elected President Trump, and their efforts will fail.”Linda McMahon, the education secretary, has said that the layoffs will help the department deliver services more efficiently and that the changes will not affect student loans, like Pell Grants, or funding for special-needs students.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      2 Democrats Begin Investigation of Move to Drop Adams Charges

      by

      In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, the lawmakers, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Jasmine Crockett of Texas, accused the Justice Department of a coverup.Two top Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have begun an investigation into the Justice Department’s request to drop federal criminal charges against Mayor Eric Adams of New York.They accused the department of covering up a quid pro quo agreement between the Trump administration and the mayor.In a letter on Sunday to Attorney General Pam Bondi, the lawmakers, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Jasmine Crockett of Texas, cited an account provided by Danielle Sassoon, who resigned as the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan over the department’s request. They said her resignation letter indicated that the administration may have agreed to “a blatant and illegal quid pro quo” with Mr. Adams: It would seek to have the case dropped, and Mr. Adams would assist in carrying out the administration’s immigration policy.“Not only did the Department of Justice attempt to pressure career prosecutors into carrying out this illegal quid pro quo; it appears that Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove was personally engaged in a cover-up by destroying evidence and retaliating against career prosecutors who refused to follow his illegal and unethical orders,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter.They added, “We write to demand that you immediately put an end to the cover-up and retaliation and provide documents and information about these disturbing accounts to Congress.”Ms. Sassoon was one of seven federal prosecutors who resigned over the department’s move to drop the corruption charges against Mr. Adams. A federal judge delayed a ruling on the request last month.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Epstein Files’ Release, Hyped by Pam Bondi, Falls Short of Expectations

      by

      The release of flight logs and Jeffrey Epstein’s contact list by the attorney general was met with criticism from those who had expected the documents to reveal new information.For days, Attorney General Pam Bondi had talked about releasing the “Epstein files,” supposedly secret documents the federal government has on some of the powerful men who were in the orbit of the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.But the roughly 200 pages of documents that Ms. Bondi released on Thursday contained little new information pointing to wrongdoing by anyone other than Mr. Epstein, a registered sex offender who died in jail. The document dump largely consisted of flight logs for Mr. Epstein’s planes — long ago made public — and contact information for hundreds of associates, along with brief descriptions of items found at his residences.The release was billed as a gesture ushering in a new era of transparency at the Justice Department. But the hyped first release of documents (which Ms. Bondi teased as “breaking news” in a Fox News appearance on Wednesday night) appeared to be mostly political theater. Its confusing daylong rollout even spun off a few new conspiracy theories among some Trump supporters, who view the Epstein investigation as a fountainhead for other conspiracies.On Thursday afternoon, Ms. Bondi and Kash Patel, the director of the F.B.I., offered a sneak preview of the documents to several conservative influencers, some of whom emerged from the West Wing waving chunky white binders with the label “The Epstein Files: Phase I.” One of them later called it an “interesting souvenir.”But by midafternoon, the Justice Department had not posted the contents. And Ms. Bondi was drawing criticism on social media from those who had taken her at her word the night before. The conservative personality Glenn Beck posted on X: “The Epstein files are a total joke,” and asked, “Who is subverting POTUS?”Ms. Bondi responded by promising more documents to come. Later, she said that a “source” in the F.B.I. field office in New York City had told her the bureau withheld “thousands” of previously unknown pages of Epstein-related documents and that she was determined to get them, according to a letter her spokesman provided to reporters.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More