Attorney General Griffin Wins Challenge to Biden Administration Rule that Gave Biological Males Access to Female Locker Rooms and Bathrooms

LITTLE ROCK – Attorney General Tim Griffin issued the following statement after a federal court dismissed the Biden administration’s appeal of an injunction won by Griffin and Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey:

“This lawsuit challenged a Biden administration rule that rewrote Title IX to give biological males access to women’s and girls’ locker rooms, bathrooms, and other areas that had previously been restricted based on biological sex. The vast majority of Americans disagree with Biden on this issue, believing instead that the safety of girls and women is paramount, and they should not be forced to share bathrooms and locker rooms with biological males.

“The recent order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismisses the appeal by our opponents and preserves the preliminary injunction we won last July. I am grateful to the Trump administration for agreeing to dismiss the appeal, and for their broader commitment to restore common sense in how we approach this issue.”

To read a copy of the order, click here.

Attorney General Griffin sues General Motors and OnStar for deceiving Arkansans and unlawfully selling data

Griffin: ‘We Will Hold GM Accountable For Deceiving Arkansans And Increasing Profits Through Deceptive Practices’

LITTLE ROCK – Attorney General Tim Griffin issued the following statement announcing that his office has sued General Motors and its subsidiary OnStar for deceiving Arkansans and selling data collected through OnStar to third parties, who then sold the data to insurance companies:

Flickr Image

“This case is about General Motors and OnStar improperly collecting detailed driving data and selling that data to third parties. These third parties then sold the data to insurance companies, who used that data to deny consumers coverage or increase their rates. Despite advertising OnStar as offering the benefits of better driving, safety, and operability of its vehicles, GM and OnStar used the data to pad their profits at the expense of consumers. GM and OnStar deceived consumers about how they used the driving data. In our lawsuit, we are alleging violations under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. We are seeking monetary relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and expenses.

“We will hold GM accountable for deceiving Arkansans and increasing profits through deceptive practices.”

To read a copy of the lawsuit, click here.

To download a PDF of this release, click here.

Coalition Suing Against Unlawful Biden Administration Rule Files Report with Court Clarifying That Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is Not Being Challenged

Griffin: ‘Threatening Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in its entirety was never our goal nor was it something we sought, despite what some have said in the media and online’

LITTLE ROCK – Attorney General Tim Griffin issued the following statement after he and the coalition of 16 other attorneys general who last year sued the Biden administration over an unlawful federal rule clarified their position with a filing in court:

“As I have reiterated over the past week, from the beginning, our lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s rule categorizing gender dysphoria as a disability was about just that: challenging that specific rule. Threatening Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in its entirety was never our goal, nor was it something we sought, despite what some have said in the media and online. But to ensure all stakeholders involved are comfortable and are clear about the 17 states’ intent, we have filed a status report with the court with the following language:

Plaintiffs clarify that they have never moved—and do not plan to move—the Court to declare or enjoin Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, as unconstitutional on its face. Plaintiffs have not sought and do not seek to enjoin the disbursement of funds from the Department on the basis that the statute is unconstitutional.

The context of the entire Complaint, ECF No. 1, shows that the meaning and scope of Count 3 asserting a claim under the Spending Clause—and the declaratory and injunctive relief sought in the demand—is an as-applied challenge to any purported application of Section 504 to funds that are not authorized by the Rehabilitation Act. Such alleged unconstitutional applications include the requirements the Final Rule imposes on recipients to adopt the “most integrated setting” and the “at serious risk of institutionalization” standards of care. 89 Fed. Reg. 40,066, 40,183, 40,120–21, 40,192 (May 9, 2024).

Nothing in Plaintiffs’ Complaint seeks to restrain the disbursement of federal funds from the Department on the basis that the statute is unconstitutional, or to otherwise prevent the Federal Government from allocating spending or applying the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act to any recipients of such funds.

“Also, it deserves mention that the lawsuit is stayed pending review of the rule by the Trump administration. I am confident the administration will soon abandon Biden’s blatantly unlawful interpretation of Section 504, which was the basis of our lawsuit in the first place.”

To read the full status report filed with the United States District Court Northern District of Texas, click here.

Griffin and 16 other AGs fight to stop Biden Era attempt to categorize gender dysphoria as a disability

LITTLE ROCK – Attorney General Tim Griffin today issued the following update explaining a lawsuit he joined in September 2024 challenging an unlawful Biden administration rule that categorized gender dysphoria as a disability and allowed the federal government to withhold funds for those with disabilities from anyone who disagrees with the rule. Recent reporting has erroneously implied that the lawsuit seeks to repeal Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

What is Section 504?
•    Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (1) prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in federally funded programs and (2) requires employers to reasonably accommodate disabilities.
•    States have to comply with Section 504 or the federal government can withdraw federal funds—like K-12 school funds, Medicaid dollars, etc.  
•    Federal law says that “gender identity disorders” are not disabilities under Section 504 or under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  
 
What prompted the lawsuit?
•    In May 2024, the Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule that—contrary to federal law—includes “gender dysphoria” as a disability under HHS regulations.
•    The rule’s gender mandate could require schools and universities to allow boys to use girls’ bathrooms and showers, even to live in girls’ dormitories; require schools and universities to allow males to compete in girls’ and women’s sports; and require teachers and students to use wrong-sex pronouns. 
•    If states do not comply with the HHS rule’s gender mandate, the Biden administration’s rule would jeopardize their federal funding. 
 
What is the lawsuit trying to do?
•    17 state attorneys general, including our office, sued to block Biden’s illegal HHS rule.  
•    The lawsuit does NOT seek to end Section 504’s disability protection for anyone covered under that statute. It simply seeks to overturn Biden’s unlawful gender mandate.
•    The lawsuit states that Section 504 did not allow the Biden administration to impose this gender mandate on the threat of taking away states’ federal funding.
•    If the states win this lawsuit, no one’s disability accommodations would be taken away—the regulations would go back to what they were before May 2024.

What is the current status of the lawsuit?
•    The lawsuit has been stayed while the Trump administration reconsiders the rule.

What about the claims that Count 3 of the lawsuit seeks to repeal Section 504?
•    The Biden administration says that Section 504 not only gives HHS the power to impose the gender mandate, but that this 52-year-old statute required the gender mandate all along.
•    We argue that the Biden administration is wrong about this. Federal law is clear that gender dysphoria is not a disability, and states cannot be forced to treat it as such in order to comply with Section 504. 
•    If Section 504 did somehow impose these gender-mandate obligations on states 50 years down the line, then the whole law wouldn’t be constitutional under the Spending Clause (which requires states be given clear conditions on federal funding). A ruling “declaring Section 504 unconstitutional”—in the context of this lawsuit—means that HHS could not revoke state funds it oversees (e.g. Medicaid funds) for the states’ failure to comply with the gender mandate. 
•    Again, the states DO NOT argue that Section 504 is actually unconstitutional, because we say that Section 504 DOES NOT allow for this gender mandate and CANNOT be interpreted the way the Biden administration tried to interpret it.
•    This statute has been on the books for 52 years. If we wanted to try and get rid of it like some people have claimed, we could have sued anytime. But we didn’t do that. We sued only after the May 2024 rule with the gender mandate.
•    When President Trump took office, we agreed to stay the case while the administration reassesses the rule. Why would we have done that if our goal was to have the entire statute struck down? It makes no sense.

What relief is the lawsuit seeking?
•    The requested relief was to enjoin federal government officials from withholding money from states for failure to comply with the unlawful gender dysphoria rule.
•    The lawsuit does not seek to repeal Section 504.

Conclusion
The Biden administration’s unlawful rule poses a legal threat to Section 504, and if enforced, it would potentially harm truly disabled students by punishing schools that refuse to conform to the unlawful final rule regarding gender dysphoria. It is the final rule classifying gender dysphoria as a disability that is being challenged by the lawsuit, NOT Section 504 itself.

Crawford County seeks more time to negotiate judgment amount in library lawsuit

by Michael Tilley (mtilley@talkbusiness.net)

Lawyers for Crawford County on Wednesday (Oct. 23) sought an extension to respond to the settlement of a financial award in a lawsuit related to the removal and relocation of books in the county’s library system.

U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes III ruled Sept. 30 against Crawford County in a First Amendment lawsuit regarding the removal and relocation of books largely because of objections from citizens to LGBTQ content.

In his decision, Holmes states that the “Court finds that even when the evidentiary record is construed in the light most favorable to the Defendants, it is indisputable that the creation and maintenance of the social section was motivated in substantial part by a desire to impede users’ access to books containing viewpoints that are unpopular or controversial in Crawford County.”

Crawford County seeks more time to negotiate judgment amount in library lawsuit

Judge hears arguments in Arkansas LEARNS indoctrination case

KUAR | By Josie Lenora

A federal judge Wednesday did not make a ruling after hearing arguments in a lawsuit over how race can be taught in Arkansas schools.

The state is trying to dismiss a case challenging Section 16 of the Arkansas LEARNS Act, which prevents educators from teaching “prohibited indoctrination including Critical Race Theory.” Under the law, teachers are also not allowed to teach anything that could “encourage discrimination.”

After the law passed, an AP African American Studies class was briefly removed from the state’s curriculum before being reinstated. A group of lawyers, along with local parents, teachers and students are suing the state. They argue the law has a vague chilling effect that makes teachers' jobs difficult, discriminates against Black people and amounts to “viewpoint discrimination.”

Judge hears arguments in Arkansas LEARNS indoctrination case

Josie Lenora/Little Rock Public Radio

Attorney Mike Laux (far right), addresses the media after a hearing on a lawsuit challenging Arkansas' ban on teaching "indoctrination" and Critical Race Theory in Little Rock Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2024.

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin co-leads challenge to federal rule that would reduce monitoring of prisoners' calls

LITTLE ROCK – Attorney General Tim Griffin today issued the following statement after he and Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita filed a lawsuit on behalf of Arkansas, Indiana, and 12 other state attorneys general challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) new rule that regulates phone service providers in prisons:

“The FCC can’t dictate to Arkansas prisons how they negotiate cost-sharing agreements with service providers, and it can’t arbitrarily and capriciously pre-empt state laws regulating prison operations. Funds derived from inmate phone use go toward covering needed security measures. Without proper security measures, what would stop inmates from conducting criminal operations over the phone? The FCC’s regulations are disconnected from the economic and practical reality of providing communication services to inmates, and they exceed the FCC’s statutory authority.

Flickr Image

“If these regulations go into effect, no one will benefit because prisons won’t be able to provide adequate security for phone calls prisoners make, and prisons may simply discontinue existing communication services, which means inmates won’t be able to make calls at all.”

Prisons negotiate contracts with communications service providers based on rate caps set by the FCC and use their portion of the revenue from these contracts to fund security measures and services that benefit inmates, including access to online legal libraries and remote religious services. The FCC’s new rule drastically reduces the rate caps, thereby making it nearly impossible for prisons to continue to invest in security measures to monitor calls.

Joining Griffin and Rokita on the lawsuit were the attorneys general of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia.

To read a copy of the complaint, click here.

Judge rules against Crawford County Library’s ‘social section’ censorship

by Tina Alvey Dale (tdale@talkbusiness.net)

U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes III ruled against Crawford County in a First Amendment lawsuit regarding the removal and relocation of books largely because of objections from citizens to LGBTQ content.

In his ruling, issued Monday (Sept. 30), Holmes said the books in question are to be returned to their original locations in the county’s libraries. (Link here for the ruling.)

Attorney Brian Meadors filed a federal complaint May 30, 2023, against book censorship actions by the Crawford County Public Library System. The Crawford County Library earlier in 2023 approved the relocation of books largely with LGBTQ content. Attorneys representing the Crawford County Library System argued that the relocation of LGBTQ books was not a First Amendment violation and instead “strikes a balance” that is “constitutionally compliant” and meets the standards of the community.

Judge rules against Crawford County Library’s ‘social section’ censorship

Library - Rawpixel Image

Supreme Court orders signature count on medical marijuana measure

by Roby Brock (roby@talkbusiness.net)

The day after an advocacy group filed a lawsuit over the rejection of its signatures, the Arkansas Supreme Court on Wednesday (Oct. 2) ordered the disputed signatures of a proposed medical marijuana amendment, Issue 3, to be counted and it approved an expedited hearing to decide if the measure would be on the Nov. 5 ballot.

On Monday (Sept. 30), Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston said Arkansans for Patient Access (APA), the ballot question committee seeking approval of Issue 3, did not meet the signature threshold of 90,704. Thurston cited incorrect filings of signatures as his reason for the rejection.

The state’s high court ordered the following actions take place in response to the filing by Arkansans for Patient Access:

• A preliminary injunction is granted;

• Secretary of State John Thurston must verify the disputed signatures;

• The group’s requested hearing on Thurston’s decision will be expedited; and

• A special master will not be appointed to the case, in opposition to APA’s request.

Supreme Court orders signature count on medical marijuana measure

Arkansas Attorney General Griffin announces lawsuit against Google, YouTube, and parent company Alphabet

Griffin: ‘YouTube has profited substantially off young Arkansans because it deliberately designed its platform to be addictive’

LITTLE ROCK – Attorney General Tim Griffin today issued the following statement announcing that he has filed a lawsuit in Phillips County Circuit Court against Google LLC, YouTube LLC, XXVI Holdings, Inc., and parent company Alphabet, Inc. for engaging in deceptive and unconscionable trade practices in violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA):

“YouTube has deceived users and parents about the safety of its platforms for youth. YouTube has profited substantially off young Arkansans because it deliberately designed its platform to be addictive by using features to keep users engaged for as long as possible.

“Google has deliberately designed and marketed YouTube to exploit and addict young users, contributing to a mental health crisis in Arkansas. The majority of children aged 13 to 17 report using YouTube every day.

“One of the gravest public health threats to children in the United States today is the soaring rate of mental and behavioral health disorders, including depression, self-harm, body dysmorphia, and increased suicidal thoughts and attempts at suicide. This increase in mental health problems among children is the result of calculated efforts by social-media companies like YouTube to attract and addict youth to their platforms and to grow revenues without regard for the harmful effects that these companies know exist.”

This lawsuit continues Griffin’s commitment to protect children and families from the dangers of social media. In 2023, Griffin sued Facebook, Instagram, Meta, and TikTok for deceiving users and parents about the safety of their apps. Earlier this month, Griffin joined a bipartisan coalition of 41 other attorneys general in sending a letter urging Congress to pass legislation requiring a U.S. Surgeon General warning label on all algorithm-driven social-media platforms.

For a copy of the lawsuit, click here.

Tyson Foods sued over ‘climate-smart’ product claims

by Talk Business & Politics staff (staff2@talkbusiness.net)

Environmental Working Group (EWG) has sued Tyson Foods over the company’s “climate-smart” claims. The civil suit was filed Sept. 18 in the District of Columbia Superior Court and backed by animal rights and environmental groups such as the Animal Legal Defense Fund, FarmSTAND and Earthjustice.

The suit claims Springdale-based Tyson is making false claims under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act in the District of Columbia because consumers are looking for these “greener products”.

“Tyson knowingly capitalizes on these well-intentioned preferences in advertising in numerous outlets a pledge to achieve ‘net-zero’ climate emissions by 2050 and marketing ‘climate-smart’ beef,” the lawsuit noted.

Tyson Foods sued over ‘climate-smart’ product claims

Attorney General Griffin's Family Dollar rat infestation lawsuit to proceed

LITTLE ROCK – Attorney General Tim Griffin today issued the following statement after a Pulaski County Circuit judge yesterday denied a motion to dismiss Griffin’s lawsuit against Family Dollar for violating the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA):

Anamalia Bio Image

“I applaud the court’s decision to permit this case to proceed. Family Dollar knew about the prevalent rodent infestation in its West Memphis distribution center and failed to warn Arkansas consumers that the goods they were purchasing had been exposed to thousands of rodents. I will continue to vigorously pursue this matter to hold Family Dollar accountable for these unconscionable acts.”

Between 2020 and 2022, Family Dollar’s West Memphis distribution center had a massive rodent problem. Between March 2021 and January 2022, 3,400 rodents were removed after state and federal inspectors intervened. The Office of the Attorney General sued Family Dollar for multiple violations of the ADTPA as well as negligence, strict liability, and unjust enrichment.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas accepted a guilty plea from Family Dollar in a federal criminal case related to rat infestation. Part of the plea agreement was a fine and forfeiture of more than $41 million.

To read the ruling, click here.

For a printer-friendly version of this release, click here.

$6 million settlement finalized in Sebastian County jail death case

by Michael Tilley (mtilley@talkbusiness.net)

A $6 million settlement has been reached in a lawsuit related to the 2021 death of Larry Price Jr., in the Sebastian County Jail. As expected, the settlement will cost Sebastian County $3 million, which the Quorum Court approved on Aug. 20.

A lawsuit was filed Jan. 13, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas seeking a jury trial. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes III. Sebastian County and Turn Key Health Clinics, the company contracted to provide medical care at the jail when Price died, were named as defendants. The lawsuit was filed by Seattle-based Budge and Heipt on behalf of the Price family.

In August 2020, Price, who had a history of mental illness and had several interactions with law enforcement, entered a Fort Smith police station where he was alleged to be verbally threatening and pointed his fingers in the shape of a gun. He was charged with making terroristic threats and booked into the Sebastian County Jail with bail set at $1,000. Unable to make bail, Price would remain in the county jail, often in solitary confinement, for more than a year. He would die on Aug. 29, 2021.

$6 million settlement finalized in Sebastian County jail death case

Larry Price’s body was photographed Aug. 29, 2021, after being pronounced dead at the Mercy Fort Smith hospital.

Federal judge temporarily blocks ‘wet signature’ rule for Arkansas voters

KUAR | By Antoinette Grajeda / Arkansas Advocate

A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the implementation of a new rule barring the use of electronic signatures on Arkansas voter registration forms except at certain state agencies.

State lawmakers in May approved an emergency rule drafted by the Arkansas Board of Election Commissioners that requires a “wet signature,” meaning signing with a pen, on voter registration applications unless they’re completed at state agencies, like the DMV.

In June, voter advocacy group Get Loud Arkansas challenged the rule with a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas against Secretary of State John Thurston, the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners and the county clerks of Benton, Pulaski and Washington counties.

Federal judge temporarily blocks ‘wet signature’ rule for Arkansas voters

Antoinette Grajeda/Arkansas Advocate

John Paul Hammerschmidt Federal Building in Fayetteville.

Republican Party of Arkansas facing internal lawsuit

KUAR | By Josie Lenora

A lawsuit has been filed stemming from the Republican Party of Arkansas’ decision to hold closed primaries. 

At a biennial convention in June, the party voted to close their primaries. This would mean that only registered Republicans could vote in primary elections. Hypothetically, having closed primaries could make winning candidates more conservative, as they would be chosen by a voter pool of people only within their own party.

The suit is being brought by state Republican Convention Chair Jennifer Lancaster. The lawsuit says the Arkansas GOP’s internal rules give them the power to make this change. Weeks after the vote, party chairman Joseph Wood nullified the decision claiming the party violated their own rules in making the decision. The disagreement represents a current disagreement in the party over ideology and rule implementation.

Republican Party of Arkansas facing internal lawsuit

Michael Hibblen/Little Rock Public Radio

The suit is asking for the primaries in Arkansas to be closed after the state Republican Party voted to close them this year.

Arkansas Supreme Court allows more parties to join abortion signature lawsuit

KUAR | By Josie Lenora

A lawsuit seeking to put a proposal to legalize abortion in Arkansas on the November ballot has been expanded to add more plaintiffs. On Tuesday, two other ballot question groups had their request to intervene as parties in the suit granted.

Arkansans For Limited Government has been working since February to put an amendment on the 2024 ballot legalizing abortion up to the 18th week of pregnancy. The group collected over 100,000 signatures, more than the over 90,000 needed to get their proposal on the ballot.

Secretary of State John Thurston said about 14,000 signatures collected by paid canvassers had to be thrown out. He said the group did not turn in the proper paid canvasser paperwork. It's unclear if this is true, as FOIA requests show documents similar to the ones he claims were missing were turned in. Thurston then said, affidavits submitted by the group were signed by the representatives of AFLG, which are the wrong people.

Arkansas Supreme Court allows more parties to join abortion signature lawsuit

Courts.Arkansas.Gov/Courts.Arkansas.Gov

The Arkansas Supreme Court is allowing two other parties to join the abortion signature lawsuit.

Pro-choice group sues Arkansas Secretary of State

KUAR | By Josie Lenora

A pro-choice group is suing Secretary of State John Thurston over a recent decision to toss out signatures gathered in support of loosening the state's strict abortion laws. They plan to take the case to the state supreme court. Arkansans For Limited Government put forward an amendment that, if approved by voters, would have legalized abortion in Arkansas up to the 18th week of pregnancy. The group collected over 101 thousand signatures, exceeding the baseline of 90 thousand. 14 thousand were collected by paid canvassers.

Secretary of State John Thurston threw out the signatures over a technicality several days later, saying the group broke Arkansas’ strict laws about paid canvassers when submitting paperwork.

Thurston said he was missing two documents. In a letter sent to the group on July 10th, he said he was missing a list of paid canvassers names and evidence they had read the handbook. He later said the group had turned in the paperwork too early.

Pro-choice group sues Arkansas Secretary of State

Courts.Arkansas.Gov/Courts.Arkansas.Gov

Supporters of an effort to legalize abortion in Arkansas filled suit in the state supreme court.

Circuit court denies TikTok's motion to dismiss, deceptive trade practices lawsuit will continue in Union County

LITTLE ROCK – Attorney General Tim Griffin today issued the following statement after the Union County Circuit Court denied a motion by TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, to dismiss Griffin’s lawsuit against the social media platform:

“I applaud the court’s decision to allow our lawsuit against TikTok and ByteDance to proceed. This marks the third time this year that a lawsuit I have brought against a social media platform has cleared this important legal hurdle.

“TikTok argued that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants in this case, that our claims under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act should fail, and that the claims are preempted. The court rightfully rejected all three arguments.

“Arkansas is leading the way in holding social media platforms accountable for how they represent themselves to customers and the type of content and algorithms they contain. I will continue to stand up for Arkansans and ensure TikTok keeps our private information out of the hands of the Chinese government.”

To read a copy of the court’s decision, click here.

For a printer-friendly version of this release, click here.

Attorney General Tim Griffin sues pharmacy benefit managers for roles in Arkansas opioid epidemic

LITTLE ROCK – Attorney General Tim Griffin today announced he has filed a lawsuit against pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) Optum, Inc., and Express Scripts, Inc., and their subsidiaries for their roles as a cause of the opioid epidemic in Arkansas and issued the following statement:

“Pill by pill and dollar by dollar, PBMs enabled the opioid epidemic in Arkansas. Today, we begin the process of holding them accountable for their roles in a crisis that has ravaged our state—a crisis they helped cause, contributed to, and furthered.

“The PBMs benefited financially from the opioid crisis in Arkansas by negotiating favorable deals with opioid manufacturers while at the same time forgetting the interests of Arkansans who received prescriptions. Instead of protecting consumers by leveraging data to curb excessive prescriptions, PBMs focused on the financial incentives of manufacturer rebates to drive profits at the expense of people.”

Between 2006 and 2014, Arkansas was flooded with almost 1.5 billion units of addictive opioids. By 2016, Arkansas had the second-highest opioid prescription rate in the nation, with 114.6 opioids being dispersed for every 100 Arkansans—nearly twice the national average and enough to supply every man, woman, and child in Arkansas 78 opioid doses each.

The suit, filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court, alleges that the PBM defendants:

• Fueled the opioid epidemic in Arkansas by increasing opioid utilization by placing opioids on lower tiers of their formularies, controlling what less addictive pain treatments were available to patients, and falsely representing that their formularies were designed to be cost effective and achieve favorable health outcomes but instead were designed to maximize profits;

• Operated online retail pharmacies that dispensed billions of morphine milligram equivalents of opioids while failing to follow state and federal laws on controlled substances; and,

• Were aware of the opioid epidemic in Arkansas and failed to take any action.

Griffin is asking that PBMs be held accountable for creating a public nuisance through their actions, being negligent in their actions, and unjustly enriching themselves.

To read a copy of the lawsuit, click here.

Lawsuit challenges Arkansas voter registration rules

KUAR | By Josie Lenora

A local group is suing over a rule regarding how voter registrations are done in the state.

Get Loud Arkansas created a website allowing people to register to vote online. In April, an Arkansas legislative committee moved to prevent this process from being used, saying applications now need to have a “wet signature.” This means voter applications must be filled out in person and only at certain state agencies. The rule change was approved by the Arkansas Board of Election Commissioners a week later.

GLA is suing along with plaintiffs Nickki Pastor and Trinity “Blake” Loper, both 18-year-olds whose voter registrations were rejected since they filled out their paperwork online. The suit is against the commissioner of the State Board of Elections, Secretary of State John Thurston and several county clerks. Get Loud Arkansas says the rule violates the rights of minority voters in a state with consistently low voter turnout.

Lawsuit challenges Arkansas voter registration rules

Sonny Albarado/Arkansas Advocate

Get Loud Arkansas hosted a rally outside the state Capitol on April 23, 2024 following the Arkansas Board of Election Commissioners’ decision to limit the use of electronic signatures on voter registration applications.