Public Policy & NGOs
Here's a look at documents from public policy and non-governmental organizations
Featured Stories
'It's About Time': ALG Praises House Passage Of Sunshine Protection Act, Urges Senate Passage
FAIRFAX, Virginia, Sept. 6 [Category: Government/Public Administration] -- Americans for Limited Government posted the following news release:
* * *
'It's About Time': ALG Praises House Passage Of Sunshine Protection Act, Urges Senate Passage
*
July 15, 2026, Fairfax, Va.-Americans for Limited Government Executive Director Robert Romano today issued the following statement praising the House for passing the Sunshine Protection Act and urged the Senate to do the same:
"The House has finally passed legislation that will end standard time once and for all. No more sunsets in the middle of the ... Show Full Article FAIRFAX, Virginia, Sept. 6 [Category: Government/Public Administration] -- Americans for Limited Government posted the following news release: * * * 'It's About Time': ALG Praises House Passage Of Sunshine Protection Act, Urges Senate Passage * July 15, 2026, Fairfax, Va.-Americans for Limited Government Executive Director Robert Romano today issued the following statement praising the House for passing the Sunshine Protection Act and urged the Senate to do the same: "The House has finally passed legislation that will end standard time once and for all. No more sunsets in the middle of theafternoon. It's about time. Nobody likes the constant clock changes. The fact is that under current law, there was never a way to opt out of standard time whereas states were permitted to opt out of daylight savings time if they really wanted to, as Arizona and Hawaii do. School districts can always have starting bells later to compensate if there is concern about later sunrises during the winter months, although it's worth noting almost all districts are already on Christmas vacation during the shortest days. Clearly, based on the House vote, and unanimous passage of practically identical legislation by the Senate in 2022, and the President's support, daylight savings time is far more popular. But really, it's just let's pick a time and stick with it. Compromise if needs be: shave a half hour off standard time. Anything's better than the clock changes, and the early sunsets in the winter are frankly depressing. But the bill's fine the way it is. It is time for the Senate to immediately take up this common sense, bipartisan legislation, stop switching the clocks and let the sun shine into the evening for good."
For media availability contact Americans for Limited Government at media@limitgov.org.
***
Original text here: https://getliberty.org/2026/07/its-about-time-alg-praises-house-passage-of-sunshine-protection-act-urges-senate-passage/
* * *
'It's About Time': ALG Praises House Passage Of Sunshine Protection Act, Urges Senate Passage
*
July 15, 2026, Fairfax, Va.-Americans for Limited Government Executive Director Robert Romano today issued the following statement praising the House for passing the Sunshine Protection Act and urged the Senate to do the same:
"The House has finally passed legislation that will end standard time once and for all. No more sunsets in the middle of the ... Show Full Article FAIRFAX, Virginia, Sept. 6 [Category: Government/Public Administration] -- Americans for Limited Government posted the following news release: * * * 'It's About Time': ALG Praises House Passage Of Sunshine Protection Act, Urges Senate Passage * July 15, 2026, Fairfax, Va.-Americans for Limited Government Executive Director Robert Romano today issued the following statement praising the House for passing the Sunshine Protection Act and urged the Senate to do the same: "The House has finally passed legislation that will end standard time once and for all. No more sunsets in the middle of theafternoon. It's about time. Nobody likes the constant clock changes. The fact is that under current law, there was never a way to opt out of standard time whereas states were permitted to opt out of daylight savings time if they really wanted to, as Arizona and Hawaii do. School districts can always have starting bells later to compensate if there is concern about later sunrises during the winter months, although it's worth noting almost all districts are already on Christmas vacation during the shortest days. Clearly, based on the House vote, and unanimous passage of practically identical legislation by the Senate in 2022, and the President's support, daylight savings time is far more popular. But really, it's just let's pick a time and stick with it. Compromise if needs be: shave a half hour off standard time. Anything's better than the clock changes, and the early sunsets in the winter are frankly depressing. But the bill's fine the way it is. It is time for the Senate to immediately take up this common sense, bipartisan legislation, stop switching the clocks and let the sun shine into the evening for good."
For media availability contact Americans for Limited Government at media@limitgov.org.
***
Original text here: https://getliberty.org/2026/07/its-about-time-alg-praises-house-passage-of-sunshine-protection-act-urges-senate-passage/
Stand Up America: After Latest Financial Disclosure Shows Stake in Fossil Fuels, Alito Still Refuses to Recuse Himself From Climate Change Case
WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 -- Stand Up America, an organization was born in 2016 as a digital-first grassroots community working to resist what they say is Donald Trump's corruption, racism and his threats to democracy, issued the following statement on Aug. 31, 2026:
* * *
AFTER LATEST FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE SHOWS STAKE IN FOSSIL FUELS, ALITO STILL REFUSES TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM CLIMATE CHANGE CASE
Stand Up America Executive Director Christina Harvey issued the following statement after Justice Samuel Alito's latest financial disclosures reveal he holds between $175,000 and $545,000 in fossil fuel-related ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 -- Stand Up America, an organization was born in 2016 as a digital-first grassroots community working to resist what they say is Donald Trump's corruption, racism and his threats to democracy, issued the following statement on Aug. 31, 2026: * * * AFTER LATEST FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE SHOWS STAKE IN FOSSIL FUELS, ALITO STILL REFUSES TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM CLIMATE CHANGE CASE Stand Up America Executive Director Christina Harvey issued the following statement after Justice Samuel Alito's latest financial disclosures reveal he holds between $175,000 and $545,000 in fossil fuel-relatedinvestments. The first case of the Supreme Court's 2026-2027 term is Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, in which Alito will help decide whether local governments can sue oil and gas companies over the harmful effects of climate change.
"When the Court returns in October, it will decide one of the most consequential climate cases in years. If Big Oil wins, communities dealing with wildfires, floods, and climate disasters will lose one of the only tools they have to make polluters pay. And one of the justices deciding their fate has a direct stake in the outcome.
"Samuel Alito took an oath to 'faithfully and impartially' administer justice. He can't keep it with the value of hundreds of thousands of dollars in fossil fuel investments riding on the decision.
"Alito's refusal to recuse himself once again makes it clear that the Supreme Court can't and won't police itself. The MAGA majority on the Court is unaccountable, unethical, and unchecked. Congress must step in as a coequal branch of government to check this Court and its corruption by passing a binding code of ethics and term limits under the next anti-corruption president."
* * *
About Stand Up America
Stand Up America is a progressive advocacy organization with over 3 million community members across the country. Focused on grassroots advocacy to stand up to corruption and voter suppression and build a more representative democracy, Stand Up America has driven nearly 2 million calls to lawmakers, registered over 100,000 voters, mobilized over 100,000 protestors, and contacted tens of millions of voters.
* * *
Original text here: https://standupamerica.com/2026/08/after-latest-financial-disclosure-shows-stake-in-fossil-fuels-alito-still-refuses-to-recuse-himself-from-climate-change-case/
[Category: Political]
* * *
AFTER LATEST FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE SHOWS STAKE IN FOSSIL FUELS, ALITO STILL REFUSES TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM CLIMATE CHANGE CASE
Stand Up America Executive Director Christina Harvey issued the following statement after Justice Samuel Alito's latest financial disclosures reveal he holds between $175,000 and $545,000 in fossil fuel-related ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 -- Stand Up America, an organization was born in 2016 as a digital-first grassroots community working to resist what they say is Donald Trump's corruption, racism and his threats to democracy, issued the following statement on Aug. 31, 2026: * * * AFTER LATEST FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE SHOWS STAKE IN FOSSIL FUELS, ALITO STILL REFUSES TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM CLIMATE CHANGE CASE Stand Up America Executive Director Christina Harvey issued the following statement after Justice Samuel Alito's latest financial disclosures reveal he holds between $175,000 and $545,000 in fossil fuel-relatedinvestments. The first case of the Supreme Court's 2026-2027 term is Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, in which Alito will help decide whether local governments can sue oil and gas companies over the harmful effects of climate change.
"When the Court returns in October, it will decide one of the most consequential climate cases in years. If Big Oil wins, communities dealing with wildfires, floods, and climate disasters will lose one of the only tools they have to make polluters pay. And one of the justices deciding their fate has a direct stake in the outcome.
"Samuel Alito took an oath to 'faithfully and impartially' administer justice. He can't keep it with the value of hundreds of thousands of dollars in fossil fuel investments riding on the decision.
"Alito's refusal to recuse himself once again makes it clear that the Supreme Court can't and won't police itself. The MAGA majority on the Court is unaccountable, unethical, and unchecked. Congress must step in as a coequal branch of government to check this Court and its corruption by passing a binding code of ethics and term limits under the next anti-corruption president."
* * *
About Stand Up America
Stand Up America is a progressive advocacy organization with over 3 million community members across the country. Focused on grassroots advocacy to stand up to corruption and voter suppression and build a more representative democracy, Stand Up America has driven nearly 2 million calls to lawmakers, registered over 100,000 voters, mobilized over 100,000 protestors, and contacted tens of millions of voters.
* * *
Original text here: https://standupamerica.com/2026/08/after-latest-financial-disclosure-shows-stake-in-fossil-fuels-alito-still-refuses-to-recuse-himself-from-climate-change-case/
[Category: Political]
Hemophilia Federation Issues Commentary: Editorial - The Preservation of Protection
WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 -- The Hemophilia Federation of America issued the following commentary on Sept. 1, 2026, by Mary Catherine Moffett, vice president for policy and advocacy:
* * *
Editorial: The Preservation of Protection
For more than 50 years a small team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has helped protect Americans living with hemophilia and other inherited blood disorders. Its work rarely makes headlines. But for families who depend on safe treatment, accurate diagnosis, reliable public health data and evidence-based care it can be lifesaving.
Today that infrastructure ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 -- The Hemophilia Federation of America issued the following commentary on Sept. 1, 2026, by Mary Catherine Moffett, vice president for policy and advocacy: * * * Editorial: The Preservation of Protection For more than 50 years a small team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has helped protect Americans living with hemophilia and other inherited blood disorders. Its work rarely makes headlines. But for families who depend on safe treatment, accurate diagnosis, reliable public health data and evidence-based care it can be lifesaving. Today that infrastructureis at risk.
The Division of Blood Disorders and Public Health Genomics within CDC's National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities has served as a federal hub for understanding blood disorders, preventing complications and improving access to high-quality care. Its history also carries an important lesson about what happens when our nation fails to adequately protect people who rely on blood-derived treatments.
During the AIDS crisis approximately nine out of 10 people with severe hemophilia were infected with HIV through contaminated blood products. Thousands were also exposed to viral hepatitis. The consequences devastated an entire generation of families in the bleeding disorders community.
Congress responded. In 1983 it appropriated funding for CDC to provide AIDS risk-reduction services for people with hemophilia and others who relied on blood-based treatment products. Subsequent federal investments helped establish surveillance systems capable of tracking the health of people with hemophilia and identifying illnesses, complications and deaths.
That work produced knowledge that changed care.
CDC research found that roughly two-thirds of people with hemophilia received care through federally supported hemophilia treatment centers, and that receiving care through these specialized centers was associated with substantially better survival. The comprehensive hemophilia treatment center model became so successful that it helped provide a blueprint for improving care for other rare blood disorders.
The surveillance system built alongside that network also enabled CDC to monitor HIV and viral hepatitis among people with hemophilia -- giving the federal government another important window into the safety of the nation's blood supply.
This is what effective public health infrastructure looks like: collect data, identify risks, translate evidence into better care and prevent the same tragedies from happening again.
And its reach extends far beyond hemophilia.
Heritable blood disorders collectively affect millions of Americans. Von Willebrand disease alone is estimated to affect as much as 1% of the US population - around 3 million Americans. The Division's work also supports people affected by sickle cell disease, thalassemia, clotting disorders and other rare bleeding and blood disorders. Many complications associated with these conditions can be prevented or reduced through early identification, specialized treatment and evidence-based care. When they are not, the human consequences can be devastating and the costs to the health care system can soar.
Remarkably, this national work has been driven by a relatively small federal staff working in close coordination with hemophilia treatment centers, health departments, researchers, clinicians and patient organizations across the country.
But following recent reductions in force affecting CDC, the leadership and staff responsible for carrying out these activities are no longer in place. Career staff have been placed on administrative leave, even as many stand ready and eager to return to their jobs.
The result is not simply a change to an organizational chart.
Congressionally funded and statutorily directed programs have been disrupted, and essential functions of the Division have effectively become inoperable.
Consider inhibitor testing.
Some people with hemophilia develop an immune response known as an inhibitor, in which the body attacks or neutralizes the treatment intended to control their bleeding. Inhibitors can affect a significant proportion of people with severe hemophilia and can make routine treatment more complicated. CDC's specialized laboratory capacity has provided critical testing and expertise that may not be readily available at every hemophilia treatment center.
Without appropriate testing, an inhibitor can go undetected. A patient may continue receiving treatment that is no longer working as expected, increasing the risk of preventable bleeding, joint damage, disability and potentially life-threatening complications. The financial consequences are significant as well: care for patients with inhibitors can cost multiples of standard hemophilia care.
The division performs another function that is less visible but equally important: turning information collected across communities into knowledge that benefits patients everywhere.
State, local and regional partners collect critical data on bleeding disorders, sickle cell disease, thalassemia, venous thromboembolism and other blood disorders. Federal experts coordinate and analyze the data, identifying trends and translating findings into public health information and evidence that clinicians, researchers and communities can use.
Without the specialized federal staff who perform that work, information can remain fragmented. Partners may continue doing important work locally, but the national infrastructure that transforms those individual efforts into population-level knowledge is diminished.
That should concern every taxpayer, not only families affected by blood disorders.
Public health surveillance and prevention are investments precisely because they allow us to identify problems before they become more dangerous and more expensive. Preventing a serious complication is better for a patient and generally far less costly than treating hospitalization, disability and long-term health consequences that follow.
The bleeding disorders community learned this lesson at an unbearable cost during the HIV/AIDS crisis. We should not have to learn it again.
Over the past several months, patient advocacy organizations representing people with rare blood disorders have joined with the American Society of Hematology and other partners in urging Congress to protect these programs. Our message is straightforward: specialized public health expertise built over decades cannot simply be switched off without consequences.
Congress should act now to restore the staff and programs of the Division of Blood Disorders and Public Health Genomics and ensure that the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities is fully funded in fiscal year 2027.
This is not about preserving bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. It is about preserving a public health system that detects threats, prevents avoidable complications, strengthens specialized care and gives patients and clinicians the evidence they need to make better decisions.
Fifty years of expertise, partnerships and patient data have created an infrastructure that has helped Americans with blood disorders live longer and healthier lives.
We should strengthen that legacy -- not dismantle it.
* * *
Mary Catherine Moffett is HFA's Vice President for Policy & Advocacy
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hemophiliafed.org/editorial-the-preservation-of-protection/
[Category: Medical]
* * *
Editorial: The Preservation of Protection
For more than 50 years a small team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has helped protect Americans living with hemophilia and other inherited blood disorders. Its work rarely makes headlines. But for families who depend on safe treatment, accurate diagnosis, reliable public health data and evidence-based care it can be lifesaving.
Today that infrastructure ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 -- The Hemophilia Federation of America issued the following commentary on Sept. 1, 2026, by Mary Catherine Moffett, vice president for policy and advocacy: * * * Editorial: The Preservation of Protection For more than 50 years a small team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has helped protect Americans living with hemophilia and other inherited blood disorders. Its work rarely makes headlines. But for families who depend on safe treatment, accurate diagnosis, reliable public health data and evidence-based care it can be lifesaving. Today that infrastructureis at risk.
The Division of Blood Disorders and Public Health Genomics within CDC's National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities has served as a federal hub for understanding blood disorders, preventing complications and improving access to high-quality care. Its history also carries an important lesson about what happens when our nation fails to adequately protect people who rely on blood-derived treatments.
During the AIDS crisis approximately nine out of 10 people with severe hemophilia were infected with HIV through contaminated blood products. Thousands were also exposed to viral hepatitis. The consequences devastated an entire generation of families in the bleeding disorders community.
Congress responded. In 1983 it appropriated funding for CDC to provide AIDS risk-reduction services for people with hemophilia and others who relied on blood-based treatment products. Subsequent federal investments helped establish surveillance systems capable of tracking the health of people with hemophilia and identifying illnesses, complications and deaths.
That work produced knowledge that changed care.
CDC research found that roughly two-thirds of people with hemophilia received care through federally supported hemophilia treatment centers, and that receiving care through these specialized centers was associated with substantially better survival. The comprehensive hemophilia treatment center model became so successful that it helped provide a blueprint for improving care for other rare blood disorders.
The surveillance system built alongside that network also enabled CDC to monitor HIV and viral hepatitis among people with hemophilia -- giving the federal government another important window into the safety of the nation's blood supply.
This is what effective public health infrastructure looks like: collect data, identify risks, translate evidence into better care and prevent the same tragedies from happening again.
And its reach extends far beyond hemophilia.
Heritable blood disorders collectively affect millions of Americans. Von Willebrand disease alone is estimated to affect as much as 1% of the US population - around 3 million Americans. The Division's work also supports people affected by sickle cell disease, thalassemia, clotting disorders and other rare bleeding and blood disorders. Many complications associated with these conditions can be prevented or reduced through early identification, specialized treatment and evidence-based care. When they are not, the human consequences can be devastating and the costs to the health care system can soar.
Remarkably, this national work has been driven by a relatively small federal staff working in close coordination with hemophilia treatment centers, health departments, researchers, clinicians and patient organizations across the country.
But following recent reductions in force affecting CDC, the leadership and staff responsible for carrying out these activities are no longer in place. Career staff have been placed on administrative leave, even as many stand ready and eager to return to their jobs.
The result is not simply a change to an organizational chart.
Congressionally funded and statutorily directed programs have been disrupted, and essential functions of the Division have effectively become inoperable.
Consider inhibitor testing.
Some people with hemophilia develop an immune response known as an inhibitor, in which the body attacks or neutralizes the treatment intended to control their bleeding. Inhibitors can affect a significant proportion of people with severe hemophilia and can make routine treatment more complicated. CDC's specialized laboratory capacity has provided critical testing and expertise that may not be readily available at every hemophilia treatment center.
Without appropriate testing, an inhibitor can go undetected. A patient may continue receiving treatment that is no longer working as expected, increasing the risk of preventable bleeding, joint damage, disability and potentially life-threatening complications. The financial consequences are significant as well: care for patients with inhibitors can cost multiples of standard hemophilia care.
The division performs another function that is less visible but equally important: turning information collected across communities into knowledge that benefits patients everywhere.
State, local and regional partners collect critical data on bleeding disorders, sickle cell disease, thalassemia, venous thromboembolism and other blood disorders. Federal experts coordinate and analyze the data, identifying trends and translating findings into public health information and evidence that clinicians, researchers and communities can use.
Without the specialized federal staff who perform that work, information can remain fragmented. Partners may continue doing important work locally, but the national infrastructure that transforms those individual efforts into population-level knowledge is diminished.
That should concern every taxpayer, not only families affected by blood disorders.
Public health surveillance and prevention are investments precisely because they allow us to identify problems before they become more dangerous and more expensive. Preventing a serious complication is better for a patient and generally far less costly than treating hospitalization, disability and long-term health consequences that follow.
The bleeding disorders community learned this lesson at an unbearable cost during the HIV/AIDS crisis. We should not have to learn it again.
Over the past several months, patient advocacy organizations representing people with rare blood disorders have joined with the American Society of Hematology and other partners in urging Congress to protect these programs. Our message is straightforward: specialized public health expertise built over decades cannot simply be switched off without consequences.
Congress should act now to restore the staff and programs of the Division of Blood Disorders and Public Health Genomics and ensure that the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities is fully funded in fiscal year 2027.
This is not about preserving bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. It is about preserving a public health system that detects threats, prevents avoidable complications, strengthens specialized care and gives patients and clinicians the evidence they need to make better decisions.
Fifty years of expertise, partnerships and patient data have created an infrastructure that has helped Americans with blood disorders live longer and healthier lives.
We should strengthen that legacy -- not dismantle it.
* * *
Mary Catherine Moffett is HFA's Vice President for Policy & Advocacy
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hemophiliafed.org/editorial-the-preservation-of-protection/
[Category: Medical]
Children's Health Defense Issues Commentary: Pennsylvania Coroner Investigating Death of Second Child With Positive Measles Test
FRANKLIN LAKES, New Jersey, Sept. 2 -- Children's Health Defense, an organization that says it restores and protects the health of children by eliminating exposures to environmental toxins, issued the following commentary by Henrick Karoliszyn, investigative reporter for The Defender:
* * *
Pennsylvania Coroner Investigating Death of Second Child With Positive Measles Test
The Lancaster County Coroner's Office today said it is investigating the death of a child who tested positive for measles. It was unclear whether the death was one of the two "measles-associated" deaths reported last week ... Show Full Article FRANKLIN LAKES, New Jersey, Sept. 2 -- Children's Health Defense, an organization that says it restores and protects the health of children by eliminating exposures to environmental toxins, issued the following commentary by Henrick Karoliszyn, investigative reporter for The Defender: * * * Pennsylvania Coroner Investigating Death of Second Child With Positive Measles Test The Lancaster County Coroner's Office today said it is investigating the death of a child who tested positive for measles. It was unclear whether the death was one of the two "measles-associated" deaths reported last weekby Pennsylvania health officials, or if the announcement involved a new case. Last week the coroner's office reported that a newborn that died had tested positive for measles, but that the infant likely died of a ruptured spleen, not measles. Investigations into both deaths are ongoing.
-
An Amish family grieving the death of a newborn has found itself at the center of a growing political and public health dispute over whether measles contributed to the infant's death.
The family's newborn son died shortly after birth on Aug. 14. The family said that the baby's mother had been ill with measles during pregnancy.
On Aug. 25, the Pennsylvania Department of Health reported two "measles-associated" deaths. Officials initially declined to release any information, including age or gender, reporting only that the two individuals were unvaccinated.
However, the Lancaster County Coroner's Office disputed that report, stating that it had recorded zero deaths caused by measles -- and only one death of a person who tested positive for measles.
The coroner, Dr. Stephen Diamantoni, told the Philadelphia Inquirer that one of the deaths involved a newborn who died shortly after birth from a lacerated spleen. The infant tested positive for the virus after death, but the coroner said the forensic pathologist found no evidence that the spleen had been enlarged by measles.
Measles antibodies were present in postmortem testing, but Diamantoni said the death was not caused by measles.
Meanwhile, Diamantoni's office today announced that it is investigating the death of another child in Lancaster County who tested positive for measles. It was unclear whether the death was one of the two "measles-associated" deaths reported last week by Pennsylvania health officials, or if the announcement involved a new case.
The dispute over the cause of the deaths has now moved beyond Pennsylvania. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) excluded both deaths from its latest national measles tally, saying available information does not establish whether measles caused or contributed to the deaths or whether the individuals died from other causes while infected.
The decision, ordered by newly installed CDC Director Erica Schwartz, is highly unusual because the agency has historically relied on state and local health departments for such reporting.
Pennsylvania officials said they followed the standard reporting process.
"Every reported measles case is thoroughly reviewed to confirm it meets the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (C.D.C.) case definition for a measles case," Neil Ruhland, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of Health, said. "To date, D.O.H. has provided all required epidemiological data to the C.D.C."
The Pennsylvania Department of Health uses the term "measles-associated" when there is laboratory or epidemiological evidence of the virus.
Shapiro, Kennedy spar over political implications
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro sparked a political controversy when he used the deaths to criticize the Trump administration's approach to vaccination policy and public health messaging shortly after the deaths were announced.
"When the information we see coming from the federal government, in some cases, isn't driven by facts and by science, it makes it even more confusing for parents, and that has a serious impact," Shapiro said.
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. responded on social media by accusing Shapiro of announcing the deaths with "giddy delight" for partisan purposes. He called the governor's announcement "unseemly" and accused him of using the COVID-19 playbook, which includes "the weaponization of infectious disease fears for political gain."
The CDC's decision not to include the deaths in its national count has only added another layer to the dispute. Public health experts say the episode risks undermining confidence in the relationship between state health departments and the federal government.
"Having the C.D.C. question what the state is sharing will only lead to a further erosion of what is a really critical partnership between states and the federal government," Anne Zink, a public health expert at Yale University and former chief medical officer for Alaska, told The New York Times.
Probe into newborn's death remains ongoing
The family at the center of the dispute says it never intended to become part of a national argument over vaccines.
The parents told The Atlantic that measles had spread through their household several weeks before their son was born. Several of their children became sick, and two required IV fluids because of dehydration.
The mother, who was pregnant, became extremely sick, developing a fever of 102 degrees and struggling to eat and drink. On Aug. 13, she received IV fluids for dehydration.
The following day, she went into labor.
The baby was born at a birthing center shortly after 5 p.m. He weighed 7 pounds but was not breathing. Emergency responders attempted to revive him with oxygen and chest compressions. He died within a half hour.
The parents said they were unaware that the coroner had identified a ruptured spleen as the immediate cause of death until reporters told them about the public statements.
Diamantoni told The Atlantic that the investigation remains ongoing.
Medical experts have noted that the relationship between congenital measles infection and the spleen is not well understood because measles infection during pregnancy is rare.
Pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit argued that congenital measles infection could have contributed to splenic injury in newborns. Other experts have cautioned that the available evidence is insufficient to establish that connection.
The CDC has likewise said it needs more information before determining whether measles caused or contributed to the deaths.
As outbreak continues, scientific and political questions remain unresolved
The dispute comes as Pennsylvania continues to experience a major measles outbreak.
The state reported 497 measles cases and 87 hospitalizations as of Monday, with Lancaster County among the hardest-hit areas.
Lancaster County is home to the country's largest Amish community, where vaccination rates have historically been lower than in the general population. Pennsylvania health officials estimated last year that only about 25% of Lancaster County's Amish population had received the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.
The Amish Church has no official doctrine prohibiting vaccination. In the family interviewed by The Atlantic, the parents said their decision not to vaccinate their children was not politically motivated and was not based on extensive research.
The Pennsylvania Department of Health says vaccination remains the best protection against measles and has expanded vaccination clinics in response to the outbreak. The state says more than 35,000 Pennsylvanians received an MMR vaccine in July, about 10,000 more than in a typical month.
As the CDC, Pennsylvania officials and the Lancaster County coroner continue to debate how the newborn's death should be classified, the parents are waiting for the coroner's final report.
The scientific and political questions remain unresolved. The family, meanwhile, has already buried its child.
Related articles in The Defender
* Coroner Contradicts Pennsylvania Health Officials, Says Measles Didn't Cause Newborn's Death (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/coroner-contradicts-pennsylvania-health-officials-measles-did-not-cause-newborn-death/)
* 2 'Measles-Associated' Deaths in Pennsylvania Spark Media Blitz -- But Officials Won't Release Details (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pennsylvania-two-measles-associated-deaths-media-blitz-officials-decline-share-details/)
* RFK Jr. Rejects Blame for Measles Outbreak, Calls for Better Care After Texas Girls' Deaths (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rfk-jr-rejects-blame-measles-outbreak-calls-for-better-care-after-texas-girls-deaths/)
* Measles Cases Surged 20% Globally But Deaths Declined by 8% -- Are More Vaccines the Answer? (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/global-measles-cases-deaths-decline-cdc-who-report/)
* Exclusive: 'Just Normal Doctoring' -- a Texas Doctor's Eyewitness Report on Measles Outbreak (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/texas-doctor-ben-edwards-eyewitness-report-measles-outbreak/)
* * *
Henrick Karoliszyn, DSW, is an investigative reporter for The Defender.
* * *
Original text here: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pennsylvania-coroner-investigating-death-second-child-positive-measles-test/
[Category: Health Care]
* * *
Pennsylvania Coroner Investigating Death of Second Child With Positive Measles Test
The Lancaster County Coroner's Office today said it is investigating the death of a child who tested positive for measles. It was unclear whether the death was one of the two "measles-associated" deaths reported last week ... Show Full Article FRANKLIN LAKES, New Jersey, Sept. 2 -- Children's Health Defense, an organization that says it restores and protects the health of children by eliminating exposures to environmental toxins, issued the following commentary by Henrick Karoliszyn, investigative reporter for The Defender: * * * Pennsylvania Coroner Investigating Death of Second Child With Positive Measles Test The Lancaster County Coroner's Office today said it is investigating the death of a child who tested positive for measles. It was unclear whether the death was one of the two "measles-associated" deaths reported last weekby Pennsylvania health officials, or if the announcement involved a new case. Last week the coroner's office reported that a newborn that died had tested positive for measles, but that the infant likely died of a ruptured spleen, not measles. Investigations into both deaths are ongoing.
-
An Amish family grieving the death of a newborn has found itself at the center of a growing political and public health dispute over whether measles contributed to the infant's death.
The family's newborn son died shortly after birth on Aug. 14. The family said that the baby's mother had been ill with measles during pregnancy.
On Aug. 25, the Pennsylvania Department of Health reported two "measles-associated" deaths. Officials initially declined to release any information, including age or gender, reporting only that the two individuals were unvaccinated.
However, the Lancaster County Coroner's Office disputed that report, stating that it had recorded zero deaths caused by measles -- and only one death of a person who tested positive for measles.
The coroner, Dr. Stephen Diamantoni, told the Philadelphia Inquirer that one of the deaths involved a newborn who died shortly after birth from a lacerated spleen. The infant tested positive for the virus after death, but the coroner said the forensic pathologist found no evidence that the spleen had been enlarged by measles.
Measles antibodies were present in postmortem testing, but Diamantoni said the death was not caused by measles.
Meanwhile, Diamantoni's office today announced that it is investigating the death of another child in Lancaster County who tested positive for measles. It was unclear whether the death was one of the two "measles-associated" deaths reported last week by Pennsylvania health officials, or if the announcement involved a new case.
The dispute over the cause of the deaths has now moved beyond Pennsylvania. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) excluded both deaths from its latest national measles tally, saying available information does not establish whether measles caused or contributed to the deaths or whether the individuals died from other causes while infected.
The decision, ordered by newly installed CDC Director Erica Schwartz, is highly unusual because the agency has historically relied on state and local health departments for such reporting.
Pennsylvania officials said they followed the standard reporting process.
"Every reported measles case is thoroughly reviewed to confirm it meets the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (C.D.C.) case definition for a measles case," Neil Ruhland, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of Health, said. "To date, D.O.H. has provided all required epidemiological data to the C.D.C."
The Pennsylvania Department of Health uses the term "measles-associated" when there is laboratory or epidemiological evidence of the virus.
Shapiro, Kennedy spar over political implications
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro sparked a political controversy when he used the deaths to criticize the Trump administration's approach to vaccination policy and public health messaging shortly after the deaths were announced.
"When the information we see coming from the federal government, in some cases, isn't driven by facts and by science, it makes it even more confusing for parents, and that has a serious impact," Shapiro said.
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. responded on social media by accusing Shapiro of announcing the deaths with "giddy delight" for partisan purposes. He called the governor's announcement "unseemly" and accused him of using the COVID-19 playbook, which includes "the weaponization of infectious disease fears for political gain."
The CDC's decision not to include the deaths in its national count has only added another layer to the dispute. Public health experts say the episode risks undermining confidence in the relationship between state health departments and the federal government.
"Having the C.D.C. question what the state is sharing will only lead to a further erosion of what is a really critical partnership between states and the federal government," Anne Zink, a public health expert at Yale University and former chief medical officer for Alaska, told The New York Times.
Probe into newborn's death remains ongoing
The family at the center of the dispute says it never intended to become part of a national argument over vaccines.
The parents told The Atlantic that measles had spread through their household several weeks before their son was born. Several of their children became sick, and two required IV fluids because of dehydration.
The mother, who was pregnant, became extremely sick, developing a fever of 102 degrees and struggling to eat and drink. On Aug. 13, she received IV fluids for dehydration.
The following day, she went into labor.
The baby was born at a birthing center shortly after 5 p.m. He weighed 7 pounds but was not breathing. Emergency responders attempted to revive him with oxygen and chest compressions. He died within a half hour.
The parents said they were unaware that the coroner had identified a ruptured spleen as the immediate cause of death until reporters told them about the public statements.
Diamantoni told The Atlantic that the investigation remains ongoing.
Medical experts have noted that the relationship between congenital measles infection and the spleen is not well understood because measles infection during pregnancy is rare.
Pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit argued that congenital measles infection could have contributed to splenic injury in newborns. Other experts have cautioned that the available evidence is insufficient to establish that connection.
The CDC has likewise said it needs more information before determining whether measles caused or contributed to the deaths.
As outbreak continues, scientific and political questions remain unresolved
The dispute comes as Pennsylvania continues to experience a major measles outbreak.
The state reported 497 measles cases and 87 hospitalizations as of Monday, with Lancaster County among the hardest-hit areas.
Lancaster County is home to the country's largest Amish community, where vaccination rates have historically been lower than in the general population. Pennsylvania health officials estimated last year that only about 25% of Lancaster County's Amish population had received the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.
The Amish Church has no official doctrine prohibiting vaccination. In the family interviewed by The Atlantic, the parents said their decision not to vaccinate their children was not politically motivated and was not based on extensive research.
The Pennsylvania Department of Health says vaccination remains the best protection against measles and has expanded vaccination clinics in response to the outbreak. The state says more than 35,000 Pennsylvanians received an MMR vaccine in July, about 10,000 more than in a typical month.
As the CDC, Pennsylvania officials and the Lancaster County coroner continue to debate how the newborn's death should be classified, the parents are waiting for the coroner's final report.
The scientific and political questions remain unresolved. The family, meanwhile, has already buried its child.
Related articles in The Defender
* Coroner Contradicts Pennsylvania Health Officials, Says Measles Didn't Cause Newborn's Death (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/coroner-contradicts-pennsylvania-health-officials-measles-did-not-cause-newborn-death/)
* 2 'Measles-Associated' Deaths in Pennsylvania Spark Media Blitz -- But Officials Won't Release Details (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pennsylvania-two-measles-associated-deaths-media-blitz-officials-decline-share-details/)
* RFK Jr. Rejects Blame for Measles Outbreak, Calls for Better Care After Texas Girls' Deaths (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rfk-jr-rejects-blame-measles-outbreak-calls-for-better-care-after-texas-girls-deaths/)
* Measles Cases Surged 20% Globally But Deaths Declined by 8% -- Are More Vaccines the Answer? (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/global-measles-cases-deaths-decline-cdc-who-report/)
* Exclusive: 'Just Normal Doctoring' -- a Texas Doctor's Eyewitness Report on Measles Outbreak (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/texas-doctor-ben-edwards-eyewitness-report-measles-outbreak/)
* * *
Henrick Karoliszyn, DSW, is an investigative reporter for The Defender.
* * *
Original text here: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pennsylvania-coroner-investigating-death-second-child-positive-measles-test/
[Category: Health Care]
Campaign for Accountability Issues Letter to N.Y. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 (TNSletter) -- Campaign for Accountability issued the following letter to Chrissoula Potaris, senior appellate court attorney at the Office of the Legal Profession of State of New York Supreme Court:
* * *
Here is the text of the letter:
August 28, 2026
Chrissoula Potaris, Esq.
Senior Appellate Court Attorney
Office of the Legal Profession
State of New York Supreme Court
Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department
P.O. Box 7288, Capitol Station
Albany, NY 12224-0288
Email: ad3-olp@nycourts.gov
Re: Matter of the Application of Campaign for Accountability
Dear Ms. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 (TNSletter) -- Campaign for Accountability issued the following letter to Chrissoula Potaris, senior appellate court attorney at the Office of the Legal Profession of State of New York Supreme Court: * * * Here is the text of the letter: August 28, 2026 Chrissoula Potaris, Esq. Senior Appellate Court Attorney Office of the Legal Profession State of New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department P.O. Box 7288, Capitol Station Albany, NY 12224-0288 Email: ad3-olp@nycourts.gov Re: Matter of the Application of Campaign for Accountability Dear Ms.Potaris:
Petitioner, the Campaign for Accountability ("CfA"), submits this letter in response to the application by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department ("Grievance Committee") of August 26, 2026, for an order sealing the above-captioned proceeding, including oral argument, until such time as the Court has rendered a decision in the matter.
This sweeping request should be denied. There is a compelling public interest in public disclosure of allegations of misconduct by the top federal prosecutor in Albany. Additionally, there are serious First Amendment issues with respect to the application of Judiciary Law Sec. 90(10) and the court rules implementing it (22 NYCRR Sec. 1240.18(a)-(c); 22 NYCRR Sec. 1250.1(e)(1)) to this case. Those issues may be addressed in the pending Petition. But to the extent Section 90(10), and its implementing rules, might apply to factual matters disclosed in the Petition itself, those matters are already public and the First Amendment prohibits indiscriminately sealing them now.
The only facts disclosed in the Petition relating to Mr. Sarcone are facts in CfA's original grievance complaint and those in the letter CfA received from the Grievance Committee (and a few other public statements). Under the First Amendment (and the text of Section 90(10), as read by the State), CfA has a right to publish its own complaint, and it has done so. Likewise, it has the right to publish any correspondence it may receive from the Grievance Committee (including this motion), and it has done that as well. Because Article I, Section 8, of the New York Constitution is even more protective of free speech than the First Amendment, Petitioner also has a right to publish the complaint it filed and the response it received from the Grievance Committee under the New York State Constitution as well. See People ex rel. Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 553, 557-58 (1986) ("[T]he minimal national standard established by the Supreme Court for First Amendment rights cannot be considered dispositive in determining the scope of this State's constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression"); O'Neill v. Oakgrove Constr., 71 N.Y.2d 521, 534 n.3 (1988) (Bellacosa, J., concurring) ("The protection afforded by the guarantees of free press and speech in the New York Constitution is often broader than the minimum required by the First Amendment"). CfA has already exercised its right to publish all the material in its possession regarding the Sarcone complaint, and the Petition just repeats those public facts. There is nothing else in the Petition other than legal arguments, for which there is no basis for sealing.
The facts in question are laid out in the Petition. In March 2025, respondent John A. Sarcone III was appointed the Interim United States Attorney for the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York. Shortly thereafter, he engaged in several erratic and potentially illegal acts, including: (i) making false statements about an alleged assault; (ii) causing an unwarranted charge of attempted murder to be filed against the alleged assailant (which was later dropped); (iii) providing a false residential address in a sworn statement, seemingly in violation of federal law requiring that he reside in the district in which he was serving; and (iv) retaliating against the newspaper whose reporting raised questions about his residency.
Given the serious ethical concerns raised by those actions, CfA filed a complaint with the Grievance Committee, alleging that Mr. Sarcone may have violated several of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. Approximately one year later, the Grievance Committee released a summary of its decision resolving CfA's complaint in a brief one-page letter addressed to CfA. The Grievance Committee stated that it "determined there was a sufficient basis for a finding of professional misconduct" against Mr. Sarcone and that it "took appropriate action" against him.
Under 22 NYCRR Sec. 1240.7(d)(2), a more detailed letter was sent to Mr. Sarcone, but not made public. Indeed, citing Section 90(10) in its letter to CfA, the Grievance Committee declined to disclose what specific allegations against Mr. Sarcone it had sustained or what action it had taken, or otherwise provide any substantive information about its decision. CfA believes in public disclosure and accountability, especially for high-ranking government officials, and its Petition seeks to unseal that information, which Section 90(10) expressly permits upon a showing of "good cause." But there is nothing about Mr. Sarcone's underlying disciplinary proceedings contained in the Petition that is still secret and nothing that the First Amendment permits the State to seal either beforehand or after the fact.
First, the Petition cites the complaint filed by CfA. In C.R. Corps. v. Pestana, 2022 WL 2118191 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2022), it was alleged that the Civil Rights Corps ("CRC") had violated Section 90(10) by making public its own grievance complaints, which it had filed against 21 former state prosecutors. Yet, on CRC's motion for summary judgment, the State of New York conceded that Section 90(10) does not preclude a party from publishing its own complaint. Id. at *7-8 ("The State Defendants' Opposition . . . directly say[s] that a party is free to publish its own grievance complaints under Section 90(10)"). Further, the Pestana court cited Kamasinski v. Jud. Rev. Council, 44 F.3d 106, 110 (2d Cir. 1994), for the proposition that the state cannot "prohibit the disclosure of the substance of an individual's complaint" because "[p]enalizing an individual for publicly disclosing complaints about the conduct of a government official strikes at the heart of the First Amendment, and . . . such a prohibition would be unconstitutional." Id. at *8 (cleaned up). The State acquiesced in this ruling, which is consistent with the uniform holdings of multiple state and federal courts,1 and did not appeal. Relying on this decision (and the others cited in n.1, supra), CfA publicly disclosed the complaint it filed against Mr. Sarcone, which has been widely reported.2 There is nothing confidential in the Petition about CfA's allegations against Mr. Sarcone.
Second, the Petition cites the letter that CfA received from the Grievance Committee reporting its resolution of the complaint. The Grievance Committee stated that it "determined there was a sufficient basis for a finding of professional misconduct" against Mr. Sarcone and that it "took appropriate action" against him. CfA released that letter publicly and it too has been widely reported.3 The court in Pestana addressed this issue as well. Like CfA, CRC had published correspondence it received from the Grievance Committee. Such publication was alleged to violate Section 90(10). On summary judgment, the court addressed "whether a state prohibiting individuals from publishing correspondence and documents related to a grievance complaint would violate the First Amendment." Pestana, 2022 WL 2118191, at *8. It held that "[t]his Court is unconvinced that the First Amendment allows the government to broadly prevent complainants . . . from publicly sharing any and all correspondence, communication, or documents related to their own grievance complaints." Id. at *10. Thus, it ruled, "[t]o the extent that Section 90(10) is being used to prohibit complainants from publicly sharing 'papers, records and documents' related to that complainant's own grievance complaint related to attorney discipline, the law's confidentiality provision violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." Id. Relying on this ruling, which the State again did not appeal, CfA released publicly the letter it received from the Grievance Committee about its own complaint, and the letter has also been widely reported. There is nothing confidential in the Petition about the contents of the letter from the Grievance Committee. For the same reasons, CfA was entitled to, and did, post the Grievance Committee's current sealing motion--which contains no facts not already public--on its website.4
Finally, the instant Petition itself is public and has been widely reported.5 There are no facts in the Petition relating to Mr. Sarcone's conduct other than the--already public--facts set forth in CfA's complaint and in the Grievance Committee's response to CfA. Those disclosures are all protected by the First Amendment. The rest of the Petition is legal argument. There is no basis in the law or in Section 90(10) for sealing legal arguments, and the Grievance Committee cites nothing. To the contrary, there is a compelling public interest in the Grievance Committee's efforts to keep its activities secret even though the facts that CfA relies upon have already been reported. Thus, CfA's Petition--and the Grievance Committee's sealing motion--raise issues of compelling public importance that should be known and discussed publicly. As the Second Circuit recently observed, the public "interest in the faithful administration of justice is heightened when the misconduct of attorneys is at stake, especially so when the purported misconduct involves . . . prosecutors who . . . operate under the aegis of the State." C.R. Corps. v. LaSalle, 184 F.4th 104, 130 (2d Cir. 2026) (citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 575 (1980) ("Plainly it would be difficult to single out any aspect of government of higher concern and importance to the people than the manner in which criminal trials are conducted[.]")).
A public resolution of this dispute is in accord with the long-standing principle that judicial proceedings are presumptively public. Even grievance proceedings before the grievance committee are "judicial proceeding[s]" with the "Grievance Committee act[ing] . . . [as] an arm of the Appellate Division." Wiener v. Weintraub, 22 N.Y.2d 330, 331-332 (1968) (noting that "a proceeding before . . . a [grievance] committee constitutes a 'judicial proceeding'") (cleaned up). As a result, the Second Circuit recently affirmed the district court ruling that dispositions by the Grievance Committee, such as its findings against Mr. Sarcone, should be public--with or without a finding of "good cause." C.R. Corps. v. LaSalle, 741 F. Supp. 3d 112, 168 (S.D.N.Y. 2024), aff'd, 184 F.4th 104 (2d Cir. 2026). While the Grievance Committee's application cites that opinion, it ignores the Second Circuit's order and still insists on keeping those findings secret. But proceedings in this Court are presumptively public unless the First Amendment interest in public judicial proceedings is overcome by "the proponent of closure . . . establish[ing] through specific, on the record findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored . . . ." Courthouse News Serv. v. Corsones, 131 F.4th 59, 67 (2d Cir. 2025) (cleaned up). The Grievance Committee makes no effort to satisfy this heavy burden and so there is no basis to grant its sealing request.6
Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the Grievance Committee will reveal any nonpublic information in its legal arguments in this case. It certainly suggests no examples, and its speculation provides no basis for any sealing, let alone the blanket sealing sought. If the Grievance Committee chooses to include any such information, it may make a sealing application limited to whatever snippets of information it believes warrant confidentiality, supported of course by a showing that the requested closure is narrowly tailored and essential to preserve higher values.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory L. Diskant, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, (212) 336-2710, gldiskant@pbwt.com
cc: Faust P. Petkovich, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioner
(VIA EMail: fpetkovich@pbwt.com)
-
Alison M. Coan, Esq.
Attorney for Respondent Grievance Committee for the
Third Judicial Department
(VIA EMail: ad3agc@nycourts.gov)
-
Michael J. Hutter, Esq.
Attorney for Respondent John A. Sarcone, III, Esq.
(VIA EMail: mhutter@powers-santola.com)
-
Paul J. DerOhannesian, II, Esq.
Attorney for Respondent John A. Sarcone, III, Esq.
(VIA EMail: paul@derolaw.com)
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://campaignforaccountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/CfA-Letter-to-Third-Department-re-Sealing-Request-8.28.26.pdf
News Release here: https://campaignforaccountability.org/cfa-response-to-attorney-grievance-committee-request-to-keep-sarcone-proceedings-sealed/
[Category: Political]
* * *
Here is the text of the letter:
August 28, 2026
Chrissoula Potaris, Esq.
Senior Appellate Court Attorney
Office of the Legal Profession
State of New York Supreme Court
Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department
P.O. Box 7288, Capitol Station
Albany, NY 12224-0288
Email: ad3-olp@nycourts.gov
Re: Matter of the Application of Campaign for Accountability
Dear Ms. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 (TNSletter) -- Campaign for Accountability issued the following letter to Chrissoula Potaris, senior appellate court attorney at the Office of the Legal Profession of State of New York Supreme Court: * * * Here is the text of the letter: August 28, 2026 Chrissoula Potaris, Esq. Senior Appellate Court Attorney Office of the Legal Profession State of New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department P.O. Box 7288, Capitol Station Albany, NY 12224-0288 Email: ad3-olp@nycourts.gov Re: Matter of the Application of Campaign for Accountability Dear Ms.Potaris:
Petitioner, the Campaign for Accountability ("CfA"), submits this letter in response to the application by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department ("Grievance Committee") of August 26, 2026, for an order sealing the above-captioned proceeding, including oral argument, until such time as the Court has rendered a decision in the matter.
This sweeping request should be denied. There is a compelling public interest in public disclosure of allegations of misconduct by the top federal prosecutor in Albany. Additionally, there are serious First Amendment issues with respect to the application of Judiciary Law Sec. 90(10) and the court rules implementing it (22 NYCRR Sec. 1240.18(a)-(c); 22 NYCRR Sec. 1250.1(e)(1)) to this case. Those issues may be addressed in the pending Petition. But to the extent Section 90(10), and its implementing rules, might apply to factual matters disclosed in the Petition itself, those matters are already public and the First Amendment prohibits indiscriminately sealing them now.
The only facts disclosed in the Petition relating to Mr. Sarcone are facts in CfA's original grievance complaint and those in the letter CfA received from the Grievance Committee (and a few other public statements). Under the First Amendment (and the text of Section 90(10), as read by the State), CfA has a right to publish its own complaint, and it has done so. Likewise, it has the right to publish any correspondence it may receive from the Grievance Committee (including this motion), and it has done that as well. Because Article I, Section 8, of the New York Constitution is even more protective of free speech than the First Amendment, Petitioner also has a right to publish the complaint it filed and the response it received from the Grievance Committee under the New York State Constitution as well. See People ex rel. Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 553, 557-58 (1986) ("[T]he minimal national standard established by the Supreme Court for First Amendment rights cannot be considered dispositive in determining the scope of this State's constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression"); O'Neill v. Oakgrove Constr., 71 N.Y.2d 521, 534 n.3 (1988) (Bellacosa, J., concurring) ("The protection afforded by the guarantees of free press and speech in the New York Constitution is often broader than the minimum required by the First Amendment"). CfA has already exercised its right to publish all the material in its possession regarding the Sarcone complaint, and the Petition just repeats those public facts. There is nothing else in the Petition other than legal arguments, for which there is no basis for sealing.
The facts in question are laid out in the Petition. In March 2025, respondent John A. Sarcone III was appointed the Interim United States Attorney for the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York. Shortly thereafter, he engaged in several erratic and potentially illegal acts, including: (i) making false statements about an alleged assault; (ii) causing an unwarranted charge of attempted murder to be filed against the alleged assailant (which was later dropped); (iii) providing a false residential address in a sworn statement, seemingly in violation of federal law requiring that he reside in the district in which he was serving; and (iv) retaliating against the newspaper whose reporting raised questions about his residency.
Given the serious ethical concerns raised by those actions, CfA filed a complaint with the Grievance Committee, alleging that Mr. Sarcone may have violated several of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. Approximately one year later, the Grievance Committee released a summary of its decision resolving CfA's complaint in a brief one-page letter addressed to CfA. The Grievance Committee stated that it "determined there was a sufficient basis for a finding of professional misconduct" against Mr. Sarcone and that it "took appropriate action" against him.
Under 22 NYCRR Sec. 1240.7(d)(2), a more detailed letter was sent to Mr. Sarcone, but not made public. Indeed, citing Section 90(10) in its letter to CfA, the Grievance Committee declined to disclose what specific allegations against Mr. Sarcone it had sustained or what action it had taken, or otherwise provide any substantive information about its decision. CfA believes in public disclosure and accountability, especially for high-ranking government officials, and its Petition seeks to unseal that information, which Section 90(10) expressly permits upon a showing of "good cause." But there is nothing about Mr. Sarcone's underlying disciplinary proceedings contained in the Petition that is still secret and nothing that the First Amendment permits the State to seal either beforehand or after the fact.
First, the Petition cites the complaint filed by CfA. In C.R. Corps. v. Pestana, 2022 WL 2118191 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2022), it was alleged that the Civil Rights Corps ("CRC") had violated Section 90(10) by making public its own grievance complaints, which it had filed against 21 former state prosecutors. Yet, on CRC's motion for summary judgment, the State of New York conceded that Section 90(10) does not preclude a party from publishing its own complaint. Id. at *7-8 ("The State Defendants' Opposition . . . directly say[s] that a party is free to publish its own grievance complaints under Section 90(10)"). Further, the Pestana court cited Kamasinski v. Jud. Rev. Council, 44 F.3d 106, 110 (2d Cir. 1994), for the proposition that the state cannot "prohibit the disclosure of the substance of an individual's complaint" because "[p]enalizing an individual for publicly disclosing complaints about the conduct of a government official strikes at the heart of the First Amendment, and . . . such a prohibition would be unconstitutional." Id. at *8 (cleaned up). The State acquiesced in this ruling, which is consistent with the uniform holdings of multiple state and federal courts,1 and did not appeal. Relying on this decision (and the others cited in n.1, supra), CfA publicly disclosed the complaint it filed against Mr. Sarcone, which has been widely reported.2 There is nothing confidential in the Petition about CfA's allegations against Mr. Sarcone.
Second, the Petition cites the letter that CfA received from the Grievance Committee reporting its resolution of the complaint. The Grievance Committee stated that it "determined there was a sufficient basis for a finding of professional misconduct" against Mr. Sarcone and that it "took appropriate action" against him. CfA released that letter publicly and it too has been widely reported.3 The court in Pestana addressed this issue as well. Like CfA, CRC had published correspondence it received from the Grievance Committee. Such publication was alleged to violate Section 90(10). On summary judgment, the court addressed "whether a state prohibiting individuals from publishing correspondence and documents related to a grievance complaint would violate the First Amendment." Pestana, 2022 WL 2118191, at *8. It held that "[t]his Court is unconvinced that the First Amendment allows the government to broadly prevent complainants . . . from publicly sharing any and all correspondence, communication, or documents related to their own grievance complaints." Id. at *10. Thus, it ruled, "[t]o the extent that Section 90(10) is being used to prohibit complainants from publicly sharing 'papers, records and documents' related to that complainant's own grievance complaint related to attorney discipline, the law's confidentiality provision violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." Id. Relying on this ruling, which the State again did not appeal, CfA released publicly the letter it received from the Grievance Committee about its own complaint, and the letter has also been widely reported. There is nothing confidential in the Petition about the contents of the letter from the Grievance Committee. For the same reasons, CfA was entitled to, and did, post the Grievance Committee's current sealing motion--which contains no facts not already public--on its website.4
Finally, the instant Petition itself is public and has been widely reported.5 There are no facts in the Petition relating to Mr. Sarcone's conduct other than the--already public--facts set forth in CfA's complaint and in the Grievance Committee's response to CfA. Those disclosures are all protected by the First Amendment. The rest of the Petition is legal argument. There is no basis in the law or in Section 90(10) for sealing legal arguments, and the Grievance Committee cites nothing. To the contrary, there is a compelling public interest in the Grievance Committee's efforts to keep its activities secret even though the facts that CfA relies upon have already been reported. Thus, CfA's Petition--and the Grievance Committee's sealing motion--raise issues of compelling public importance that should be known and discussed publicly. As the Second Circuit recently observed, the public "interest in the faithful administration of justice is heightened when the misconduct of attorneys is at stake, especially so when the purported misconduct involves . . . prosecutors who . . . operate under the aegis of the State." C.R. Corps. v. LaSalle, 184 F.4th 104, 130 (2d Cir. 2026) (citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 575 (1980) ("Plainly it would be difficult to single out any aspect of government of higher concern and importance to the people than the manner in which criminal trials are conducted[.]")).
A public resolution of this dispute is in accord with the long-standing principle that judicial proceedings are presumptively public. Even grievance proceedings before the grievance committee are "judicial proceeding[s]" with the "Grievance Committee act[ing] . . . [as] an arm of the Appellate Division." Wiener v. Weintraub, 22 N.Y.2d 330, 331-332 (1968) (noting that "a proceeding before . . . a [grievance] committee constitutes a 'judicial proceeding'") (cleaned up). As a result, the Second Circuit recently affirmed the district court ruling that dispositions by the Grievance Committee, such as its findings against Mr. Sarcone, should be public--with or without a finding of "good cause." C.R. Corps. v. LaSalle, 741 F. Supp. 3d 112, 168 (S.D.N.Y. 2024), aff'd, 184 F.4th 104 (2d Cir. 2026). While the Grievance Committee's application cites that opinion, it ignores the Second Circuit's order and still insists on keeping those findings secret. But proceedings in this Court are presumptively public unless the First Amendment interest in public judicial proceedings is overcome by "the proponent of closure . . . establish[ing] through specific, on the record findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored . . . ." Courthouse News Serv. v. Corsones, 131 F.4th 59, 67 (2d Cir. 2025) (cleaned up). The Grievance Committee makes no effort to satisfy this heavy burden and so there is no basis to grant its sealing request.6
Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the Grievance Committee will reveal any nonpublic information in its legal arguments in this case. It certainly suggests no examples, and its speculation provides no basis for any sealing, let alone the blanket sealing sought. If the Grievance Committee chooses to include any such information, it may make a sealing application limited to whatever snippets of information it believes warrant confidentiality, supported of course by a showing that the requested closure is narrowly tailored and essential to preserve higher values.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory L. Diskant, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, (212) 336-2710, gldiskant@pbwt.com
cc: Faust P. Petkovich, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioner
(VIA EMail: fpetkovich@pbwt.com)
-
Alison M. Coan, Esq.
Attorney for Respondent Grievance Committee for the
Third Judicial Department
(VIA EMail: ad3agc@nycourts.gov)
-
Michael J. Hutter, Esq.
Attorney for Respondent John A. Sarcone, III, Esq.
(VIA EMail: mhutter@powers-santola.com)
-
Paul J. DerOhannesian, II, Esq.
Attorney for Respondent John A. Sarcone, III, Esq.
(VIA EMail: paul@derolaw.com)
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://campaignforaccountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/CfA-Letter-to-Third-Department-re-Sealing-Request-8.28.26.pdf
News Release here: https://campaignforaccountability.org/cfa-response-to-attorney-grievance-committee-request-to-keep-sarcone-proceedings-sealed/
[Category: Political]
CAIR-Arizona Calls for Accountability After Peoria School Board Member's Latest 'Islam Is Not a Religion' Post
WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations posted the following news release on Sept. 1, 2026:
* * *
CAIR-Arizona Calls for Accountability After Peoria School Board Member's Latest 'Islam Is Not a Religion' Post
The Arizona chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Arizona), a chapter of the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, is today renewing its call for accountability from Peoria Unified School District Governing Board Member Janelle Bowles following her latest social media post stating "Islam is not a religion."
Her latest ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations posted the following news release on Sept. 1, 2026: * * * CAIR-Arizona Calls for Accountability After Peoria School Board Member's Latest 'Islam Is Not a Religion' Post The Arizona chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Arizona), a chapter of the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, is today renewing its call for accountability from Peoria Unified School District Governing Board Member Janelle Bowles following her latest social media post stating "Islam is not a religion." Her latestanti-Islam post commented on another post calling for the "deportation for all the Islamic Muslim people who have invaded America," and comes after CAIR-Arizona, Muslim families, educators, faith leaders, and community members previously raised serious concerns about anti-Muslim rhetoric attributed to Board Member Bowles.
In a statement, CAIR-Arizona Executive Director Azza Abuseif said:
"Board Member Janelle Bowles's latest bigoted anti-Islam post further underscores the need for Peoria Unified School District leadership to address concerns about religious bias and ensure that Muslim students and families are treated with the same dignity, respect, and protection afforded to members of every other faith community.
"An elected school board member has a responsibility to serve every child and every family in the district, regardless of their faith. Statements denying the religious identity of Islam are deeply concerning when they come from someone entrusted with representing students and families. Muslim children should not have to wonder whether their elected school board representatives respect their faith or see them as equal members of the school community."
She called on Bowles to publicly apologize for her repeated anti-Muslim statements, explain how she intends to represent Muslim students and families fairly.
CAIR-Arizona also called on the Peoria Unified Governing Board to publicly condemn religious discrimination and anti-Muslim bigotry in all forms.
* * *
CAIR's mission is to protect civil rights, enhance understanding of Islam, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-arizona-calls-for-accountability-after-peoria-school-board-members-latest-islam-is-not-a-religion-post/
[Category: Sociological]
* * *
CAIR-Arizona Calls for Accountability After Peoria School Board Member's Latest 'Islam Is Not a Religion' Post
The Arizona chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Arizona), a chapter of the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, is today renewing its call for accountability from Peoria Unified School District Governing Board Member Janelle Bowles following her latest social media post stating "Islam is not a religion."
Her latest ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations posted the following news release on Sept. 1, 2026: * * * CAIR-Arizona Calls for Accountability After Peoria School Board Member's Latest 'Islam Is Not a Religion' Post The Arizona chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Arizona), a chapter of the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, is today renewing its call for accountability from Peoria Unified School District Governing Board Member Janelle Bowles following her latest social media post stating "Islam is not a religion." Her latestanti-Islam post commented on another post calling for the "deportation for all the Islamic Muslim people who have invaded America," and comes after CAIR-Arizona, Muslim families, educators, faith leaders, and community members previously raised serious concerns about anti-Muslim rhetoric attributed to Board Member Bowles.
In a statement, CAIR-Arizona Executive Director Azza Abuseif said:
"Board Member Janelle Bowles's latest bigoted anti-Islam post further underscores the need for Peoria Unified School District leadership to address concerns about religious bias and ensure that Muslim students and families are treated with the same dignity, respect, and protection afforded to members of every other faith community.
"An elected school board member has a responsibility to serve every child and every family in the district, regardless of their faith. Statements denying the religious identity of Islam are deeply concerning when they come from someone entrusted with representing students and families. Muslim children should not have to wonder whether their elected school board representatives respect their faith or see them as equal members of the school community."
She called on Bowles to publicly apologize for her repeated anti-Muslim statements, explain how she intends to represent Muslim students and families fairly.
CAIR-Arizona also called on the Peoria Unified Governing Board to publicly condemn religious discrimination and anti-Muslim bigotry in all forms.
* * *
CAIR's mission is to protect civil rights, enhance understanding of Islam, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-arizona-calls-for-accountability-after-peoria-school-board-members-latest-islam-is-not-a-religion-post/
[Category: Sociological]
CAIR Joins 150 Orgs in Opposing Trump Admin's Threat to Target Center for American Progress
WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations posted the following news release on Sept. 1, 2026:
* * *
CAIR Joins 150 Orgs in Opposing Trump Admin's Threat to Target Center for American Progress
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today joined 150 other organizations - led by Nonprofits Together - in issuing a joint public statement condemning a recent legal attack against the Center for American Progress (CAP). The coalition of civil rights groups, policy organizations, and civic institutions ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations posted the following news release on Sept. 1, 2026: * * * CAIR Joins 150 Orgs in Opposing Trump Admin's Threat to Target Center for American Progress The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today joined 150 other organizations - led by Nonprofits Together - in issuing a joint public statement condemning a recent legal attack against the Center for American Progress (CAP). The coalition of civil rights groups, policy organizations, and civic institutionswarned that the action represents a broader effort to suppress independent analysis and silence organizations that challenge government policy.
SEE: Statement on CAP Signed By 150 Organizations (https://nptogether.org/press/cap-statement)
In July, CAP published an analytical report concluding that the President's deployment of the National Guard to cities around the country failed to reduce crime. In response, President Trump's personally attorney reportedly threatened CAP with a $5 billion defamation lawsuit for dissenting from the official government narrative.
The 150 organizations stated that every organization has a right to publish evidence-based, independent analysis of government policy and how that is the cornerstone of American democracy, regardless of which party holds power and who sits in the Oval Office. The full text of the statement is below:
"Since our nation's founding, the rights to free speech, association, and the press have been the bedrock on which American democracy has thrived. We reaffirm, as has each generation before us, our unqualified commitment to the First Amendment and its foundational protections. In so doing, we stand in strong solidarity with the Center for American Progress (CAP), a nonpartisan think tank, and its right to publish expert analysis on the impact of the Trump administration's--or any administration's--policies. The free exchange of ideas--including ideas that are inconvenient to those in power--is critical for Americans to understand the nature and impact of the actions of their government.
"President Trump's recent legal attack on CAP takes aim at the heart of these foundational rights, and is the latest salvo in the Administration's ongoing efforts to suppress the speech of organizations that challenge their policies, defend the rule of law and protect civil rights and vulnerable communities. Independent sources of expert analysis allow Americans to better understand government policy and how it's affecting them. Experts across or even within think tanks often disagree; it is the right of every American to freely access their findings and form their own opinions. Attempting to silence any of these sources of information degrades our free exchange of ideas, and risks leaving only distortions in the public square.
"This is infinitely more damaging to our democratic ideals when done for purely political purposes. There are few issues more fundamental to the First Amendment than the right of an independent organization to publish evidence-based analysis of a government policy and how it is or is not working.
"This is not about ideology or partisanship. In a recent editorial, the Washington Post rightly noted that 'Think tanks are as American as baseball, jazz and apple pie. They perform an unsung role in holding governments accountable at all levels...Such organizations and their supporters should not fear legal harassment when elected officials dislike their work.' This is true regardless of who is in power, and who is issuing public critiques of that power.
"We stand with the Center for American Progress, not in agreement with every view they hold, but in steadfast support for their rights to voice those views freely and without political retribution."
* * *
CAIR's mission is to protect civil rights, enhance understanding of Islam, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-joins-150-orgs-in-opposing-trump-admins-threat-to-target-center-for-american-progress/
[Category: Sociological]
* * *
CAIR Joins 150 Orgs in Opposing Trump Admin's Threat to Target Center for American Progress
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today joined 150 other organizations - led by Nonprofits Together - in issuing a joint public statement condemning a recent legal attack against the Center for American Progress (CAP). The coalition of civil rights groups, policy organizations, and civic institutions ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations posted the following news release on Sept. 1, 2026: * * * CAIR Joins 150 Orgs in Opposing Trump Admin's Threat to Target Center for American Progress The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today joined 150 other organizations - led by Nonprofits Together - in issuing a joint public statement condemning a recent legal attack against the Center for American Progress (CAP). The coalition of civil rights groups, policy organizations, and civic institutionswarned that the action represents a broader effort to suppress independent analysis and silence organizations that challenge government policy.
SEE: Statement on CAP Signed By 150 Organizations (https://nptogether.org/press/cap-statement)
In July, CAP published an analytical report concluding that the President's deployment of the National Guard to cities around the country failed to reduce crime. In response, President Trump's personally attorney reportedly threatened CAP with a $5 billion defamation lawsuit for dissenting from the official government narrative.
The 150 organizations stated that every organization has a right to publish evidence-based, independent analysis of government policy and how that is the cornerstone of American democracy, regardless of which party holds power and who sits in the Oval Office. The full text of the statement is below:
"Since our nation's founding, the rights to free speech, association, and the press have been the bedrock on which American democracy has thrived. We reaffirm, as has each generation before us, our unqualified commitment to the First Amendment and its foundational protections. In so doing, we stand in strong solidarity with the Center for American Progress (CAP), a nonpartisan think tank, and its right to publish expert analysis on the impact of the Trump administration's--or any administration's--policies. The free exchange of ideas--including ideas that are inconvenient to those in power--is critical for Americans to understand the nature and impact of the actions of their government.
"President Trump's recent legal attack on CAP takes aim at the heart of these foundational rights, and is the latest salvo in the Administration's ongoing efforts to suppress the speech of organizations that challenge their policies, defend the rule of law and protect civil rights and vulnerable communities. Independent sources of expert analysis allow Americans to better understand government policy and how it's affecting them. Experts across or even within think tanks often disagree; it is the right of every American to freely access their findings and form their own opinions. Attempting to silence any of these sources of information degrades our free exchange of ideas, and risks leaving only distortions in the public square.
"This is infinitely more damaging to our democratic ideals when done for purely political purposes. There are few issues more fundamental to the First Amendment than the right of an independent organization to publish evidence-based analysis of a government policy and how it is or is not working.
"This is not about ideology or partisanship. In a recent editorial, the Washington Post rightly noted that 'Think tanks are as American as baseball, jazz and apple pie. They perform an unsung role in holding governments accountable at all levels...Such organizations and their supporters should not fear legal harassment when elected officials dislike their work.' This is true regardless of who is in power, and who is issuing public critiques of that power.
"We stand with the Center for American Progress, not in agreement with every view they hold, but in steadfast support for their rights to voice those views freely and without political retribution."
* * *
CAIR's mission is to protect civil rights, enhance understanding of Islam, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-joins-150-orgs-in-opposing-trump-admins-threat-to-target-center-for-american-progress/
[Category: Sociological]