SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH – Attorney General Sean D. Reyes sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice over the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Victim Compensation Grant Program (“Proposed Rule”). The letter from the State of Utah follows letters from the States of Alabama and Kansas in opposition to the federal government’s proposed regulations.

In his letter, General Reyes shares Alabama and Kansas’ concerns regarding the lack of statutory authority for the Proposed Rule. He also argues that some of the conditions in the Proposed Rule directly conflict with Utah law and that the DOJ’s Office for Victims of Crime lacks statutory authority to regulate disparate impact in the criminal justice system.

General Reyes writes, “The VOCA Grant Program is an example of a State-Federal partnership that benefits innocent victims of crime, not criminals. I ask that you not destroy it by using the program as a cudgel to push controversial political objectives. The Proposed Rule should be withdrawn in its entirety. Any technical amendments to accommodate statutory changes should be made in a separate rulemaking, limited to just those technical amendments.”

Earlier this year, General Reyes joined a letter to the U.S. House and Senate “urging Congress to provide bridge funding to the Crime Victims Fund.”

Read the letter here.

SALT LAKE CITY, UT—Today, Attorney General Reyes joined a Florida-led coalition of 23 states in filing a legal action demanding that Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency modify its Title VI regulations. These regulations—known as “disparate impact” regulations—are what the EPA is using to advance much of its race-conscious “environmental justice” initiatives.

AG Reyes stated as follows:

The Supreme Court has, in the past, justifiably questioned the statutory authority for Title VI disparate impact regulations, explaining they rely on a “strange” reading of the law. However, this has not prevented the EPA from contorting that same “strange” reading into the enforcement of environmental regulations based on race. 

There are undoubtedly circumstances that may warrant disparate impact regulations. Congress made clear environmental protections aren’t one of them.

In a Petition for Rulemaking, Attorney General Moody and the coalition go on to state that the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that the EPA’s regulations are unlawful: “Although Sandoval did not directly address the validity of Title VI disparate impact regulations, the Court expressed significant skepticism on the validity of those regulations.” The Court explained that the regulations were “in considerable tension with the rule…that forbids only intentional discrimination.” Additionally, the attorneys general claim that “other scholars have even suggested that the EPA’s regulations violate the Equal Protection Clause.” Notably, in 2020, the Trump administration proposed a revision to the Department of Justice’s similar Title VI regulations to remove disparate impact provisions. The Biden administration withdrew the proposal shortly after taking office.

The attorneys general conclude by stating: “By imposing disparate impact liability where it is not called for by statute, the EPA’s regulations gravely depart from the original understanding of Title VI and compel States to unconstitutionally discriminate against their citizens by incorporating disparate-impact liability. EPA should grant this Petition and revise its Title VI regulations to be consistent with Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause.”

Attorney General Reyes joined Attorney General Moody on the petition along with the state attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Read the petition here.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH—Attorney General Sean D. Reyes joined a letter to the U.S. Department of Education about concerning—and possibly illegal—guidance given to postsecondary education institutions regarding the entangling of Federal Work-Study funds with election-related activities. The states of West Virginia and Indiana led the letter.

According to the States, Dr. Nasser H. Paydar, the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Postsecondary Education, sent a Dear Colleague letter to postsecondary education institutions, telling them “that [Federal Work-Study] funds may be used for employment by a Federal, State, local, or Tribal public agency for civic engagement work that is not associated with a particular interest or group.” Dr. Paydar added that “[t]his work can include supporting broad-based get-out-the-vote activities, voter registration, providing voter assistance at a polling place or through a voter hotline, or serving as a poll worker.”

In their letter, the attorneys general argue that the guidance from the U.S. Department of Education “violates federal law, does not provide meaningful protections against abuse, [and] appears to be part of a broader effort to use public initiatives to enlist favored voters.”

The coalition encourages the federal agency to “reconsider [the] guidance” and to alert all contacted institutions that the Federal Work-Study funds “may [not] be used for supporting [the election-related activities] under any circumstances.” The attorneys general conclude their correspondence by writing, “If the Biden Administration really cares about ‘[r]espect[ing] free and fair elections’ and ‘[r]estor[ing] trust in our institutions,” this pullback would be a good place to start.”

Joining Utah, West Virginia, and Indiana were the states of Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas.

Read the letter here.

As the Utah Attorney General’s Office has always been dedicated to protecting children, we’d like to raise awareness about child abuse this month and encourage all Utahns to support efforts to prevent it.

Unfortunately, child abuse is a pervasive issue that affects countless families worldwide. It involves any act or failure to act that results in harm, potential harm, or the risk of damage to a child. Whether it is physical, emotional, sexual, or neglectful, child abuse can have long-lasting effects on a child’s physical, emotional, and mental well-being.

As such, the Attorney General’s Office’s top priority is “to keep citizens, especially children, safe from violent crimes, domestic abuse, and predatory crimes. The AGO works hard through its task forces and with law enforcement partners to fight the illegal drug trade, human trafficking, government corruption, and many other types of serious criminal activity. The office investigates and prosecutes these crimes to make the state safe for Utah families while protecting victims and empowering them to reclaim their lives.”

These priorities are accomplished through various initiatives, including our Human Trafficking in Persons Task Force, ICAC Task Force, and Utah Children’s Justice Center Program. Together, these efforts aim to educate the public and provide valuable resources for victims and their families through education campaigns, grassroots and non-governmental organizational efforts, victim recovery support, and advocacy.

As we focus on Child Abuse Awareness Month, we’re committed to helping ensure that all Utah children grow up in safe and nurturing environments while supporting those already affected and raising awareness about this serious issue. 

Visit the AGO website to learn more about our initiatives and resources for victims’ rights. Together, we can prevent child abuse and create a better future for all Utah children.

The Utah Attorney General’s Office conveys its deepest condolences to the family of Mayor Ted Wilson upon his passing and sends our love and support to his daughter, Missy Wilson Larsen, a beloved leader in our AG Office.

Like the mountains he was so skilled at summiting, Mayor Wilson’s life and public service were towering monuments of strength that inspired and uplifted the people of Utah and many beyond our borders.

His civic legacy will be one of a bright, optimistic, compassionate, and inclusive leader who built bridges and forged friendships with people from all walks of life.

He had an endearing passion for the environment and education, and his contributions to those and so many other fields will long be remembered.

Ted quietly mentored and supported many of us in public and private service to our community regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. He was a gentleman with a great sense of humor, zest for life, outsized love for humanity, and a healthy dose of irreverence.

His greatest legacy—his children and grandchildren—are already continuing his example of servant leadership and, like he did, giving back to Utah and America in immeasurable ways.

Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH – In a letter signed by 16 additional states to Climate Action 100+ (CA100+) members, Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes reiterated legal concerns over association with the organization as it shifts to Phase 2. The multi-state warning notifies the members to immediately evaluate the lawfulness of the radical CA100+ agenda to “take action” in using investor money to pressure companies “to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the value chain” in line with the Paris Agreement goals. The letter also points out that the world’s largest asset managers are leaving CA100+ because of legal risks previously identified by state attorneys general and that Phase 2 heightens legal concerns. 

“Over the last several years, legal concerns have risen exponentially as a result of the radical agenda and seemingly extortive practices of Climate Action 100+. Although environmental stewardship is critically important to our states and constituents, CA100’s extreme, unrealistic, and legally suspect ESG mandates will continue to be scrutinized and challenged by the State of Utah and at least 16 other states,” said General Reyes. “The fact that many of the world’s largest asset managers are leaving CA100 due to legal risks of membership is simply the beginning of what we will see as more of the organization’s liability and practices are exposed.”

In the letter, the States argue that leading asset managers have belatedly recognized the legal risk of CA100+ commitments. J.P. Morgan Asset Management, State Street Global Advisors, PIMCO, and Invesco all recently announced their withdrawal from CA100+. In addition, BlackRock announced that it will limit involvement with CA100+ to its international arm and will now pursue net-zero goals in engagements and proxy votes only for clients who have expressly asked it to do so.

The States also highlight the conflict between CA100+ membership and at least six different legal duties:

1. The fiduciary duty of loyalty requires asset managers to act solely in their client’s financial interests.
2. The fiduciary duty of care requires asset managers to provide advice that is in the best interest of their clients, based on the client’s objectives, and to provide advice and monitoring over the course of the relationship.
3. Antitrust laws prohibit, among other things, contracts or combinations in restraint of trade.
4. Various holding company laws may apply here.
5. State laws prohibit deceptive acts or practices towards consumers, as well as making false statements or omitting facts concerning the offer or sale of securities.
6. The SEC requires certain information to be filed pursuant to Schedule 13D.

Joining Utah on the letter were the States of Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming.

Read the letter here.

In any given month, the Utah Attorney General’s Office can join dozens of amici, also known as ‘friend of the court’ briefs, or sign the AG’s name to a persuasive letter that argues for or against a hot topic.

Why does the office do this? The answer makes sense – legally speaking!

In this episode, Deputy Solicitor General Christopher Bates explains why our office joins these letters and briefs, the costs and benefits, and how the entire process works.

Listen to the podcast here.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH – Attorney General Sean D. Reyes joined an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court in Chiaverini v Napoleon over a Fourth Amendment question. The brief, which was led by the State of Iowa, argues that the length-of-detention rule supersedes a charge-specific rule when determining Fourth Amendment violations by the government.

Jason Chiaverini, a jewelry store owner, purchased items illegally obtained from a previous owner. He was arrested and charged with retaining stolen property, violating his licensing arrangement, and laundering money. The case was dismissed on a technicality apart from the merits, which led to Chiaverni countering with a lawsuit claiming that his arrest was unconstitutional and that there was no probable cause to support the counts that preceded his arrest. Both the district and appeals courts found that the arrest was, in fact, constitutional and that Chiaverni had no lawful basis for his challenge, clearing the way for this attempt at the U.S. Supreme Court.

In their brief, the coalition of attorneys general argues that “the Sixth Circuit did not err in denying petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim for malicious prosecution, [and that] this Court should not adopt petitioner’s overly broad approach.”

The States write, “The length-of-detention rule should prevail over Petitioner’s proposed charge-specific rule. The charge-specific rule only requires that plaintiffs prove that a charge lacked probable cause to find malicious prosecution. From there, courts must presume that the invalid charge caused an unreasonable search or seizure. But an invalid charge alone is not a Fourth Amendment violation. Therefore, the charge-specific rule removes the burden of proving an unreasonable search or seizure from the plaintiff.”

Joining Utah and Iowa on the brief were the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.

Read the brief here.

In November 2023, Utah filed a lawsuit against insulin manufacturers Eli Lilly, Novo, Nordisk, and Sanofi, as well as pharmacy benefits managers CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and Optum RX. The lawsuit claims that the companies charge too much for insulin due to their pricing scheme.

Since filing, consumers have contacted our office and shared personal stories of their sacrifices to afford this crucial medicine.

Mark Holliday from our office is the lead attorney on the case for the state. Legally Speaking welcomes him with an update and his perspective on the situation.

Read about the state’s lawsuit against insulin here.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH – Attorney General Sean D. Reyes joined a comment letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the pending Clean Air Act (CAA) regulatory proposal Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large Municipal Waste Combustors Voluntary Remand Response and 5-Year Review. The State of Indiana led the letter, urging the EPA to “abandon the proposed regulation.”

On January 23, 2024, the EPA published its proposed rule. The press release announcing the rule states that the rule [would] reduc[e] existing disproportionate and adverse effects on overburdened communities.” However, the States make the case that “the EPA’s environmental justice analysis goes beyond the scope granted to it by Congress.”

In their letter, the attorneys general argue that “the EPA’s proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious, [that] the EPA’s proposed rule should not have considered any ‘environmental justice’ analysis, [and that] the EPA should extend the comment period to allow for substantive input from all stakeholders.”

The coalition writes, “For states with waste-to-energy facilities, those facilities play an integral role in our states’ economies and our approaches to waste and resource management….These facilities serve as an essential part of a necessary ‘all of the above’ energy policy – they help recycle metals while providing good jobs and clean, affordable electricity for local communities. Furthermore, WTE facilities often operate in partnership with local governments. We are concerned…with the Proposed Rule’s excessively burdensome effects on those facilities.”

Utah and Indiana were joined on the letter by the States of Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.

Read the letter here.