Arkansas Attorney General Griffin leads 26-state amicus supporting West Virginia Title IX appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

LITTLE ROCK – Attorney General Tim Griffin today issued the following statement after filing an amicus brief on behalf of himself and 25 other state attorneys general calling on the United States Supreme Court to take up West Virginia’s appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down the state’s law protecting girls’ sports:

“Like Arkansas, West Virginia has a strong interest in safeguarding the benefits of equal access to athletic opportunities for women and girls. They deserve the opportunity to shine on a level playing field. Biological males should not be robbing females of their opportunity to compete for athletic accolades or scholarships, nor should they be threatening the safety of women in competition. I will continue fighting to protect girls’ sports teams and the opportunities of female athletes.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit blocked West Virginia’s “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which bans male athletes from playing on girls’ sports teams, saying the law violated Title IX. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court to hear his appeal.

Griffin is leading the amicus brief with Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall supporting the West Virginia appeal. They are joined by the state attorneys general of Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

To read the brief, click here.

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

Constitutional expert said he believes recent immunity ruling by Supreme Court is too broad

KUAR | By Ronak Patel

Last week, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump in the Trump v. United States case, according to NPR News.

In the opinion, the majority wrote that any president has immunity when they are exercising their “core constitutional duties.” In an interview with KARK Channel 4’s Capitol View, John DiPippa, dean emeritus of the Bowen School of Law and a constitutional expert, said one of the issues with this ruling is it is difficult to determine whether or not a president is acting within their official capacity.

“The details make it very difficult to ever show a president’s acts are unofficial,” Dipippa said. “For example, the court said if a president talks to a cabinet official or the attorney general that’s an official act and you can’t use the conversation to prove that it was unofficial or if he was pursuing a private goal.”

Constitutional expert said he believes recent immunity ruling by Supreme Court is too broad

Olivier Douliery/AFP Via Getty Images

Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court grants Trump partial win in immunity question

by Michael Tilley (mtilley@talkbusiness.net)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday (July 1) ruled that former President Donald Trump does not have total immunity, but would have the “presumption” of immunity for any official acts while in office. The ruling is seen as a victory for Trump.

Early legal analysis suggests the Court’s ruling will make it more difficult for Special Prosecutor Jack Smith to pursue the Jan. 6 insurrection case against Trump because it potentially limits evidence that can be used by the prosecution. The justices were split 6-3 on the opinion and along partisan lines. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion. (Link here for a PDF of the opinion.)

As part of his challenge to allegations he illegally tried to interfere with the 2020 election process, Trump and his attorneys claim that as a former president he is immune to criminal prosecution. Federal law now provides immunity to a president while in office with the immunity related to a president’s official actions.

U.S. Supreme Court grants Trump partial win in immunity question

Rep. Crawford statement on SCOTUS decision in Trump v. United States

Washington, D.C. — Representative Rick Crawford (AR-01) released the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States.

“The SCOTUS decision today confirms that a President is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts within his ‘conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.’ This ruling should prove to any Justice Department official, Democrat or Republican, that politically motivated prosecutions cannot be directed at the President. Clearly, some of the indictments in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against President Trump are likely unconstitutional. Instead of rushing to a conclusion that is not based on our Constitution and established caselaw, the District Court should reflect on this ruling and determine the best course forward for our nation and not a pre-desired political outcome,” said Rep. Crawford.

Attorney General Griffin calls challengers' decision not to seek U.S. Supreme Court review of Arkansas's successful defense of legislative map 'a win for Arkansas'

LITTLE ROCK – Attorney General Tim Griffin today issued the following statement after the NAACP and ACLU declined to seek U.S. Supreme Court review of the state’s landmark win before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment:

“Last year, the Eighth Circuit threw out a challenge to Arkansas’s legislative map and became the first federal court of appeals to make clear that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is not privately enforceable. The NAACP and ACLU’s decision not to ask the Supreme Court to review the Eighth Circuit’s ruling is a win for Arkansans as it ends that challenge, leaves Arkansas’s legislative map in place, and puts an end to similar meritless challenges in other states.

“For far too long special interests groups have used Section 2 to hijack redistricting decisions and dictate how states conduct elections. The Eighth Circuit’s decision put an end to that practice in Arkansas and six other states. It confirmed that decisions about how to enforce the Voting Rights Act should be made by elected officials, not special interest groups. And here, the Biden administration tellingly declined—when asked—to challenge Arkansas’s legislative map.

“It is important to remember that Arkansas’s redistricting process is handled primarily by three statewide constitutional officers who are answerable to Arkansas voters. I thank Solicitor General Nicholas Bronni and Senior Assistant Solicitor General Asher Steinberg for their excellent work on this case.”

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

Arkansas professors discuss the impacts of affirmative action programs in college admissions

KUAR | By KUAR News

Two weeks ago, the U.S Supreme Court in a ruling that involved Harvard and the University of North Carolina ended affirmative action. In the majority opinion by the Supreme Court, an academic paper written by Robert Steinbuch, a law professor at the UA Little Rock Bowen School, was quoted by Justice Clarence Thomas.

During a panel discussion on Arkansas Week, Steinbuch said his paper used data to analyze the effectiveness of race-based admissions programs at law schools.

“What the paper shows is that the success rate for example Blacks passing the bar, after graduation, I should say the failure rate is double that of whites,” he said. “It’s not because they’re Black, but because they are admitted with insufficient credentials and we’re not telling the students this when we take their money.”

https://www.ualrpublicradio.org/local-regional-news/2023-07-09/arkansas-professors-discuss-the-impacts-of-affirmative-action-programs-in-college-admissions

Arkansas PBS

The U.S Supreme Court's decision to undo affirmative action will change the way schools handle their admissions. Robert Steinbuch, a law professor at the UA Little Rock Bowen School of Law, said the Supreme Court was correct in their ruling.

NALC’s Rollins to discuss WOTUS definition after SCOTUS ruling in July 19 webinar

By Tru Joi Curtis
National Agricultural Law Center
U of A System Division of Agriculture

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — How the Environmental Protection Agency will define the key Clean Water Act term “waters of the United States,” or WOTUS, is unclear following a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on a case involving wetlands, said National Agricultural Law Center Staff Attorney Brigit Rollins.

Brigit Rollins, staff attorney for the National Agricultural Law Center, will present a July 19 webinar on the current state of WOTUS and the recent Sackett ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Sackett vs. Environmental Protection Agency determined that only those wetlands that share a continuous surface connection with a water body recognized under the WOTUS definition can be regulated under the Clean Water act, or CWA. This has created some inconsistencies with the EPA’s 2023 definition of WOTUS which includes some wetlands that do not share a surface connection with another body of water.

The definition of WOTUS determines what water bodies can be protected by the CWA, which is the primary federal law regulating water pollution in the United States. The CWA requires anyone who might introduce pollutants into a body of water protected under the CWA to acquire a permit from EPA. Introducing pollutants into a WOTUS without a permit can result in fines and criminal prosecution under the CWA. Therefore, it is incredibly important to understand the scope of WOTUS.

“The EPA will most likely have to revisit its 2023 definition of WOTUS because that rule is out of step with the court’s ruling,” Rollins said. “In particular, the Sackett opinion limits what wetlands can be covered by the Clean Water Act beyond what the EPA included in its 2023 rule.”

Confusion over the WOTUS definition and the protection wetlands should receive is nothing new. Since the CWA was passed in 1972, the degree of protection for wetlands has been a point of contention for policymakers.

Rollins will be discussing the current state of WOTUS and the recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court during NALC’s upcoming webinar, “What’s Up with WOTUS: A Look at the Current WOTUS Definition and Recent Supreme Court Decision.” This webinar will be held Wednesday, July 19, at 11 a.m. Central/noon Eastern.

“I look forward to shedding some light on the court’s recent ruling, and what that may mean for the definition of WOTUS going forward,” Rollins said.

The webinar is free of charge and registration is online.

“We are thrilled to have Brigit discuss the court’s ruling and the WOTUS definition in this webinar,” NALC Director Harrison Pittman said. “Because the definition affects so many industries and how they conduct their work, it’s critical to understand the status of WOTUS.”

The July webinar is the second in a series regarding WOTUS. The information and recording for the first part, “What’s Up with WOTUS: An Overview of ‘Waters of the United States’ and Why it Matters to Agriculture,” can also be found online.

Rollins will present a third installment on Nov. 15, titled, “What’s Up with WOTUS: Post-Sackett and Beyond.” The November webinar will look at subsequent events and consider the long-term effects of the Sackett ruling. Registration and information for the third part of the series is available online.

For information about the National Agricultural Law Center, visit nationalaglawcenter.org or follow @Nataglaw on Twitter. The National Agricultural Law Center is also on Facebook and LinkedIn.

For updates on agricultural law and policy developments, subscribe free of charge to The Feed, the NALC’s newsletter highlighting recent legal developments facing agriculture, which issues twice a month.

Arkansas AG Tim Griffin agrees with U.S Supreme Court's decision to end affirmative action

KUAR | By Talk Business & Politics Staff

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, a Republican, said he agreed with the U.S Supreme Court’s decision to end affirmative action. The decision by the Supreme Court ends the ability for public and private universities to consider race as a factor during the admissions process, according to NPR News.

During an interview with Talk Business & Politics, Griffin said overturning affirmative action was the correct decision because the U.S Constitution is color blind.

“I’m not surprised by this ruling. In fact, we had several issues here in Arkansas that involved minority set asides like you have to have pigment in your skin to get this job or you have to be of a certain race to get this job,” he said. “We knew that was not going to fly. We thought that’s where this [Supreme Court] opinion was going and that’s exactly what they said.”

https://www.ualrpublicradio.org/local-regional-news/2023-07-02/arkansas-ag-tim-griffin-agrees-with-u-s-supreme-courts-decision-to-end-affirmative-action

Michael Hibblen/KUAR News

In addition to Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, a Republican, Arkansas' Republican Gov. Sarah Sanders also views the U.S Supreme Court's decision to end affirmative action as the correct ruling. President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party of Arkansas disagreed with the court's ruling.

Rutledge: U.S. Supreme Court orders abortion clinics to pay for state's legal costs

LITTLE ROCK – Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge issued a statement following the U.S. Supreme Court’s judgment in Rutledge v. Little Rock Family Planning Services vacating a lower court order blocking Arkansas’s ban on abortions performed solely on the basis of a Down syndrome diagnosis and ordering Little Rock Family Planning Services to pay the State of Arkansas for filing costs associated with seeking Supreme Court review. This Supreme Court victory comes on the heels of the dismissal of Planned Parenthood v. Gillespie in federal district court, where Arkansas terminated Planned Parenthood’s participation in the State’s Medicaid program. Since the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June, Attorney General Rutledge has also been successful in ending litigation challenging the dismemberment abortion ban and the total abortion ban (SB6).

“For the last two years, Arkansas has been the most prolife state in the union because of the work of the dedicated staff at the Attorney General’s Office,” said Attorney General Rutledge. “After certifying the Supreme Court’s overruling of Roe and Casey, which ended elective abortion in Arkansas, my office jumped into action to strike all remaining abortion lawsuits. I have always advocated for the lives of unborn children because no baby should ever face the unimaginable and horrifying fate of abortion.”

Poll: President Biden Sees Job Disapproval Grow in Arkansas

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

President Joe Biden’s job disapproval among Arkansans is growing, led by independent voters whose confidence in his handling of the job has declined. And a new survey of likely Arkansas voters finds more dissatisfaction than satisfaction in the institution of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The latest Talk Business & Politics-Hendrix College Poll of 916 likely Arkansas voters was conducted Sept. 20-22, 2021 and has a margin of error of +/- 4.04%. The survey asked:

Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the job President Joe Biden is doing?

17% Strongly approve
22% Somewhat approve  (39% Approve)
6% Somewhat disapprove
53% Strongly disapprove  (59% Disapprove)
2% Don’t know

Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the job the U.S. Supreme Court is doing?

7% Strongly approve
38% Somewhat approve  (45% Approve)
29% Somewhat disapprove
19.5% Strongly disapprove  (48.5% Disapprove)
6.5% Don’t know

https://talkbusiness.net/2021/09/poll-president-biden-sees-job-disapproval-grow-in-arkansas/

AG Rutledge Discusses PBM Legal Victory, Reasons for Challenging Presidential Election

by Roby Brock (roby@talkbusiness.net)

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, R-Ark., had a busy week centered around rulings involving the U.S. Supreme Court.

Arkansas’ top legal officer won a landmark lawsuit before the high court involving the pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) industry, but by week’s end, the Supreme Court dashed the hopes of a Texas lawsuit aimed at overturning the election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Rutledge joined a Missouri brief to intervene in the Texas case arguing that Arkansas voters’ ballots would be “diluted” if the results weren’t overturned.

https://talkbusiness.net/2020/12/ag-rutledge-discusses-pbm-legal-victory-reasons-for-challenging-presidential-election/

Arkansas Solicitor General Defends Pharmacy Law Before U.S. Supreme Court

A law regulating reimbursements by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should stand because it doesn’t regulate benefits or plan administration, Arkansas Solicitor General Nicholas Bronni argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The attorney representing PBMs, however, argued the law is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, a federal law otherwise known as ERISA.

https://www.ualrpublicradio.org/post/arkansas-solicitor-general-defends-pharmacy-law-us-supreme-court

Arkansas Solicitor General Defends Pharmacy Law Before U.S. Supreme Court

A law regulating reimbursements by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should stand because it doesn't regulate benefits or plan administration, Arkansas Solicitor General Nicholas Bronni argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. The attorney representing PBMs, however, argued the law is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, a federal law otherwise known as ERISA.

U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Arkansas Appeal On Pharmacy Benefit Managers Tuesday

Arkansas Solicitor General Nicholas Bronni will defend before the U.S. Supreme Court the constitutionality of a state law regulating pharmacy benefit managers next Tuesday.

Passed in 2015, Act 900 seeks to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which act as middlemen between pharmacists and insurance providers. Their reimbursement rates theoretically incentivize pharmacies to find lower wholesale drug prices.

https://www.ualrpublicradio.org/post/us-supreme-court-hear-arkansas-appeal-pharmacy-benefit-managers-tuesday

U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Arkansas Appeal On Pharmacy Benefit Managers Tuesday

Arkansas Solicitor General Nicholas Bronni will defend before the U.S. Supreme Court the constitutionality of a state law regulating pharmacy benefit managers next Tuesday. Passed in 2015, Act 900 seeks to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which act as middlemen between pharmacists and insurance providers.