Attorney General
Here's a look at documents from state attorneys general
Featured Stories
S.D. A.G. Jackley Announces Sioux Falls Woman Indicted On Grand Theft Charge
PIERRE, South Dakota, June 5 -- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General Jackley Announces Sioux Falls Woman Indicted On Grand Theft Charge
PIERRE, S.D.--South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announces that a Sioux Falls woman has been indicted on one count of Grand Theft for taking unauthorized control of monies owned by 16 different victims that had a combined value of between $100,000 and $500,000.
Margaret Jean Spears-Pederson, 67, was indicted May 22 by a Codington County Grand Jury. The alleged theft occurred in Codington
... Show Full Article
PIERRE, South Dakota, June 5 -- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General Jackley Announces Sioux Falls Woman Indicted On Grand Theft Charge
PIERRE, S.D.--South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announces that a Sioux Falls woman has been indicted on one count of Grand Theft for taking unauthorized control of monies owned by 16 different victims that had a combined value of between $100,000 and $500,000.
Margaret Jean Spears-Pederson, 67, was indicted May 22 by a Codington County Grand Jury. The alleged theft occurred in CodingtonCounty between Jan. 1, 2023, and Jan. 1, 2025.
"The defendant is alleged to have violated the victims' trust," said Attorney General Jackley. "This is a good reminder for consumers to do due diligence when agreeing to pay for services. Make sure everything is in writing upfront before you provide payment."
Spears-Pederson made her initial court appearance on Wednesday, June 4 (today). Bond has been set at $50,000 cash surety.
If convicted, Spears-Pederson faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison. She is presumed innocent under the U.S. Constitution.
Agencies investigating the case were South Dakota Consumer Protection Division, South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation, and Watertown Police Department. The Attorney General's Office is prosecuting the case.
* * *
Original text here: https://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/Media/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=2851
Oregon to Receive Up to $66 Million From the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma in Opioid Crisis Resolution
SALEM, Oregon, June 5 -- Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield issued the following news release on June 4, 2025:
* * *
Oregon to Receive up to $66 Million from the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma in Opioid Crisis Resolution
AG Rayfield: Oregon families deserve justice, and every dollar we recover will go toward healing our communities and building a future free from this crisis.
*
Attorney General Dan Rayfield announced today that Oregon and a bipartisan coalition of states will accept a $7.4 billion settlement with the Sackler family, and Purdue Pharma, for their role in fueling the national
... Show Full Article
SALEM, Oregon, June 5 -- Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield issued the following news release on June 4, 2025:
* * *
Oregon to Receive up to $66 Million from the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma in Opioid Crisis Resolution
AG Rayfield: Oregon families deserve justice, and every dollar we recover will go toward healing our communities and building a future free from this crisis.
*
Attorney General Dan Rayfield announced today that Oregon and a bipartisan coalition of states will accept a $7.4 billion settlement with the Sackler family, and Purdue Pharma, for their role in fueling the nationalopioid crisis.
"We will not stop fighting to hold opioid companies accountable for the devastation they've caused," Rayfield said. "Oregon families deserve justice, and every dollar we recover will go toward healing our communities and building a future free from this crisis."
Under the settlement, the Sacklers will pay up to $6.5 billion and their company, Purdue Pharma, L.P., will pay up to $900 million.
Settlement Details:
* Total Settlement Amount: Up to approximately $7.4 billion
* Oregon's Share: Up to approximately $66 million
* Payment Timeline: Oregon negotiated to receive its funds over 9 years, faster than the 16-year timeline for most other states.
* Fund Allocation:
- 45% to the State: Directed into the Opioid Settlement Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Fund, established by Oregon statute in 2022.
- 55% to Counties and Cities: Distributed to support local opioid prevention, treatment, and recovery programs.
The money can be used in a variety of ways. For example, Clackamas County has allocated funds for treatment programs such as jail opioid detox and medication for opioid use disorder, prevention efforts including school-based programming, and warm hand-off programs and recovery services like case management and peer recovery support.
While the agreement is still subject to a complex bankruptcy process, Oregon's acceptance marks a significant step toward finalizing the deal. If approved, the settlement will deliver funds to the participating states, local governments, affected individuals, and other parties who have previously sued the Sacklers or Purdue.
"This settlement ensures Oregon communities receive much-needed resources like drug treatment and prevention programs," said Attorney General Rayfield. "It's about helping the communities that have carried the weight of the opioid crisis for too long and making sure the companies that helped cause this damage are held responsible. It means more money for resources for treatment, prevention, and support."
The $66 million recovery for Oregon in this settlement is in addition to the nearly $645 million in settlements Oregon has recovered since July 2021 in national lawsuits against several pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and retailers for their role in the opioid crisis.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.doj.state.or.us/media-home/news-media-releases/oregon-to-receive-up-to-66-million-from-the-sacklers-and-purdue-pharma-in-opioid-crisis-resolution/
Md. A.G. Brown Urges Court to Protect Enforcement of Voting Rights Act
BALTIMORE, Maryland, June 5 -- Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown issued the following news release on June 4, 2025:
* * *
Attorney General Brown Urges Court to Protect Enforcement of Voting Rights Act
BALTIMORE, MD (June 4, 2025) - Attorney General Anthony G. Brown today joined 18 other attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, supporting the right of the American people to cast their ballots free from racial discrimination. The brief, filed in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, specifically argues in defense of the
... Show Full Article
BALTIMORE, Maryland, June 5 -- Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown issued the following news release on June 4, 2025:
* * *
Attorney General Brown Urges Court to Protect Enforcement of Voting Rights Act
BALTIMORE, MD (June 4, 2025) - Attorney General Anthony G. Brown today joined 18 other attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, supporting the right of the American people to cast their ballots free from racial discrimination. The brief, filed in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, specifically argues in defense of theability of private citizens to file lawsuits to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) when their rights are violated.
Congress enacted the VRA in 1965 to guarantee that the voting rights of the American people would not be denied or restricted based on race. Section 2 of the VRA specifically prohibits state and local governments from enacting such racially discriminatory policies. For nearly 60 years, individual Americans have been able to file lawsuits to enforce Section 2 of the VRA when they believed it was violated. Without this right of private enforcement, only the U.S. Attorney General would be able to file a lawsuit enforcing the Section 2 rights of voters in every county and state in the Eighth Circuit.
In 2022, individual voters and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians filed a lawsuit under Section 2 of the VRA challenging North Dakota's recently enacted legislative map. After a trial, a district court found that the map diluted Native Americans' votes, making it nearly impossible for them to have any say in choosing their elected officials. A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision and, despite 60 years of practice to the contrary, ruled that individual voters and organizations could not sue to enforce Section 2 of the VRA. The amicus brief asks for the full Eighth Circuit court to rehear the case.
"This case is the latest example of the Eighth Circuit Court trying to strip away voting rights protections that have stood for 60 years. The Court has already taken away voters' ability to sue to enforce the Voting Rights Act. Now it is closing the courthouse doors entirely, leaving people with no way to seek justice when their voting rights are violated," said Attorney General Brown. "We must defend this landmark law, the product of civil rights leaders' decades-long struggle to ensure that everyone can vote, no matter their race."
In their brief, the coalition argues that private enforcement of the VRA is essential, having served as the primary method of enforcing the VRA since its enactment. The coalition notes that approximately 400 private VRA cases have been filed nationwide, compared to only about 40 brought by the U.S. Attorney General. The U.S. Attorney General lacks the resources to monitor, investigate, and prosecute voting-rights violations in every corner of the country.
Without private enforcement of the VRA, voters will have no recourse if the U.S. Attorney General does not address their concerns. The coalition also explains that lawsuits brought under Section 2 of the VRA often have a high degree of urgency since they typically pertain to upcoming elections. Without private enforcement, Americans may be limited to simply sharing their concerns with the federal government and then waiting to see whether their voting rights will be defended.
Additionally, the attorneys general emphasize the deterrent effect of having meaningful rights to enforce our voting laws. Eliminating all private enforcement could lessen the likelihood that the VRA will be enforced, thereby reducing the incentives for state and local officials to comply with the VRA when crafting policy. As evidence, they point to the fact that, after the Supreme Court effectively struck down the VRA's provision that required certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to receive federal pre-approval before changing voting laws, states previously subject to preclearance promptly enacted restrictive voting laws.
Joining Attorney General Brown in filing the brief are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/press/2025/060425a.pdf
Del. Chief Deputy A.G. Logan Upholds Department of Correction and Delaware State Police FOIA Denials
DOVER, Delaware, June 5 -- Delaware Chief Deputy Attorney General Daniel Logan issued the following opinion (No. 25-IB31) on June 4, 2025:
* * *
To: Tom Somers, Jr., tom.somers1@icloud.com
RE: FOIA Petitions Regarding the Delaware Department of Correction and Delaware State Police, Department of Safety and Homeland Security
Dear Mr. Somers:
We write in response to your correspondence alleging violations of Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. Sec.Sec. 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). Your first correspondence alleged that the Delaware Department of Correction ("DOC") violated FOIA by denying
... Show Full Article
DOVER, Delaware, June 5 -- Delaware Chief Deputy Attorney General Daniel Logan issued the following opinion (No. 25-IB31) on June 4, 2025:
* * *
To: Tom Somers, Jr., tom.somers1@icloud.com
RE: FOIA Petitions Regarding the Delaware Department of Correction and Delaware State Police, Department of Safety and Homeland Security
Dear Mr. Somers:
We write in response to your correspondence alleging violations of Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. Sec.Sec. 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). Your first correspondence alleged that the Delaware Department of Correction ("DOC") violated FOIA by denyingtwo requests for records. Shortly thereafter, you submitted additional correspondence alleging that the Delaware State Police, Department of Safety and Homeland Security ("DSP") also violated FOIA by denying a request for records. We treat this correspondence as a combined Petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. Sec. 10005 of whether a violation of FOIA has occurred or is about to occur. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the DOC and DSP did not violate FOIA, as the requested records are exempt from disclosure under the pending litigation exemption, and neither the additional specificity nor the index you requested were required to be included with the public bodies' responses to the requests.
BACKGROUND
You sent three requests to the DOC and DSP, referring to an encounter you had with law enforcement officers of the DSP and DOC on March 19, 2025. A day after this incident, you submitted the following request to the DOC:
1. Any reports, communications, or dispatch logs related to probation officers responding to this [March 19, 2025] incident.
2. The name and badge number of the probation officer who responded.
3. Any written documentation regarding probation's involvement, including notes about my restitution status, payments, or legal obligations discussed during the encounter.
4. Policies and procedures regarding when probation officers are called to a scene by law enforcement officers.[1]
In response, the DOC supplied the name of the probation officer that responded to this incident and stated that the officer notes and the DOC policies are protected under Title 11, Chapter 43, Subchapter II of the Delaware Code and it had no additional information to provide regarding the remaining items in the request.
On April 18, 2025, you submitted a second request to the DOC:
1. Probation Officer Notes, Reports, and Internal Communications - Any and all internal notes, incident reports, memoranda, and emails created by or involving Probation Officer . . . regarding the March 19, 2025 incident. This includes digital or handwritten notes, official or unofficial communications, and internal administrative notations about Tom Somers Jr.
2. Records Retention Policies - Probation Division - All current retention policies or schedules related to probation officer notes, incident documentation, email communications, and administrative reports. These policies should reflect standards in effect as of March 2025.
3. Chain of Custody and Access Logs - Probation Records - Any chain-of-custody records, user access logs, or modification history associated with any files, documents, or digital entries concerning the March 19, 2025 incident and my probation file.
4. Probation FOIA Request Log - A copy of the FOIA request log maintained by the Probation Division from January 1, 2025 to the present, showing the subject, date, response status, and reason for denial (if any) for each FOIA request received.
5. Officer Assignment or Duty Logs - Probation Officer - Any assignment logs or internal rosters showing the duty status, supervision assignment, or schedule of Probation Officer . . . on or around March 19, 2025.
6. Legal Justification for Prior Denials - For each previously denied FOIA request submitted to your agency, please provide the specific exemption(s) under 29 C. Sec.10002 or Sec.10003 used to withhold the records, including citation, exemption title, and written explanation.
7. Body-Worn Camera Footage Involving Probation Officers - To the extent any probation officers were equipped with or had access to body-worn camera equipment, I hereby request copies of any body-worn camera footage related to the March 19, 2025 incident. This includes any audiovisual recording, regardless of whether it was created by probation officers directly or in collaboration with law enforcement. If your agency does not maintain or operate body-worn cameras, please confirm this in writing.[2]
By letter dated April 14, 2025 to the DOC, you advised that you "were preparing to file a federal civil rights lawsuit regarding events that occurred during [your] encounter on March 19, 2025, involving [the responding probation officer], during a stop initiated by [an officer] of the Delaware State Police" and requested the DOC's preservation of evidence.[3] The DOC denied access to the records sought in the April 18, 2025 request pursuant to the pending or potential litigation exemption in Section 10002(o)(9).
On April 18, 2025, you submitted the following request to the DSP:
1. Metadata and Audit Logs - Body and Dash Camera Footage - All metadata, access logs, audit trails, and retention records for any body-worn or dash camera footage involving [the DSP officer] or any officer/unit involved in the March 19, 2025, incident. . . .
2. Record Retention Policies - All current retention schedules or policies in effect as of March 2025 regarding the following categories: (a) body-worn and dash camera footage; (b) internal emails and memos; (c) officer report documentation; (d) digital evidence; and (e) radio and dispatch communications.
3. Chain of Custody Documentation - Any and all chain-of-custody or access logs associated with the March 19, 2025 incident, including those for reports, digital recordings, emails, and other records maintained by your agency.
4. FOIA Request Log (Transparency Demand) - A full FOIA request log from January 1, 2025 to the present, identifying the subject of each request, the date received, response issued, and any statutory basis for denial.
5. Officer Duty Logs / Shift Assignment Records - Duty rosters, shift logs, or assignment sheets for all personnel assigned to [relevant barracks or unit] on March 19, 2025 including the [DSP officer] if applicable.
6. Legal Justification for Prior Denials - For each previously denied FOIA request, provide the specific exemption(s) under 29 C. 10002 or 10003 used to withhold the records, including statutory citation, exemption title, and explanation for application.
7. Re-issued Request for Previously Denied Records - This request reaffirms and formally re-submits the demand for access to the following records, previously denied without justification . . . .[4]
This request further states "[t]hese materials are central to a pending federal civil rights claim and are not exempt under 29 Del. C. Sec. 10002."[5] On April 29, 2025, the DSP denied access to these records under the investigatory files exemption in Section 10002(o)(3) and the pending or potential litigation exemption in Section 10002(o)(9). These Petitions followed.
The DOC Petition alleges that the DOC's response to the March 20, 2025 request was improper. You believe that these records should be produced as they are in the public interest and "fall squarely within the scope of public interest, particularly given their potential use in litigation concerning civil rights."[6] Additionally, you argue that the DOC's assertion that probation officer notes are categorically exempt "lacks sufficient factual specificity" to meet FOIA.[7] For the second request, you contend that the DOC's invocation of the potential litigation exemption is improper, because the public body is required to show a clear connection between the specific documents withheld and a legitimate litigation strategy, and this litigation exemption cannot shield documents related to the actions of state officers during an on-duty encounter in a public setting. The DSP Petition alleges that the DSP should have included an index of withheld records with its response and that the metadata records, timestamp logs, retention policies, and FOIA access logs are not investigatory file records. Additionally, you contend that Section 10002(o)(9) is inapplicable when the public's strong interest in transparency outweighs any claimed investigatory privilege.
The DOC, through its legal counsel, replied to the DOC Petition ("DOC Response"). The DOC asserts its denials were proper and included a copy of the letter requesting that the DOC preserve evidence as you are preparing to file a federal civil rights lawsuit. The DSP also responded to the Petition through its counsel ("DSP Response"). The DSP provides a copy of the May 7, 2025 complaint against the DSP and DOC filed in the U.S. District Court of Delaware.[8] The complaint alleges that your civil rights were violated during the March 19, 2025 encounter with the DSP and DOC officers. You also allege that the DSP and DOC failed to respond to your FOIA requests in good faith and obstructed your access to records, and you seek court relief for these allegations.
DISCUSSION
FOIA requires that citizens be provided reasonable access to and reasonable facilities for the copying of public records.[9] The public body has the burden of proof to justify its denial of access to records.[10]
FOIA's central purpose is to "ensure governmental accountability by providing Delaware's citizens access to open meetings and meeting records of governmental or public bodies, as well as access to the public records of those entities."[11] Under FOIA, "records pertaining to pending or potential litigation which are not records of any court" are excluded from the definition of "public record."[12] "[W]hen parties to litigation against a public body seek information relating to the litigation, they are not doing so to advance 'the public's right to know,' but rather to advance their own personal stake in the litigation."[13] "Delaware courts will not allow litigants to use FOIA as a means to obtain discovery which is not available under the court's rules of procedure."[14] "And the legislature has made it clear that the Act is not intended to supplant, nor even to augment, the courts' rules of discovery."[15]
To determine if the pending litigation exemption applies, we must consider whether litigation is pending and whether the records that the requesting party seeks pertain to that pending litigation.[16] In this case, this factual record makes clear that litigation is now pending; the requested records relate to that litigation; and these requests are intended to advance your interest in this pending litigation. Accordingly, we find that the requested records are exempt under Section 10002(o)(9).[17]
In addition, the Petitions allege that the responses from the public bodies were not sufficiently factually specific and did not include an index. The FOIA statute expressly provides that a public body must provide the reasons for the denial but a "public body shall not be required to provide an index, or any other compilation, as to each record or part of a record denied."[18] The public bodies in this case provided reasons for denial including statutory citations. We find no violation on these bases.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the DOC and DSP did not violate FOIA, as the requested records are exempt from disclosure under the pending litigation exemption, and neither the additional specificity nor the index you requested were required to be included with the public bodies' responses to the requests.
Very truly yours,
Daniel Logan, Chief Deputy Attorney General
cc: Joseph C. Handlon, Deputy Attorney General
Abigail de Uriarte, Deputy Attorney General
Dorey L. Cole, Deputy Attorney General
* * *
Footnotes:
[1] DOC Response, Ex. A.
[2] Id., Ex. C.
[3] Id., Ex. D.
[4] DSP Petition. The seventh item repeats a former request for four categories of records substantially similar to the March 20, 2025 request to the DOC.
[5] Id.
[6] DOC Petition.
[7] Id.
[8] DSP Response, Ex. B.
[9] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10003(a).
[10] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10005(c).
[11] Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996, 1004 (Del. 2021).
[12] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10002(o)(9).
[13] Grimaldi v. New Castle Cnty., 2016 WL 4411329, at *9 (Del. Super. Aug. 18, 2016) (citation omitted).
[14] Mell v. New Castle Cnty., 835 A.2d 141, 147 (Del. Super. 2003) (citation omitted).
[15] Office of the Pub. Defender v. Del. State Police, 2003 WL 1769758, at *3 (Del. Super. Mar. 31, 2003).
[16] Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 21-IB02, 2021 WL 559557, at *2 (Jan. 21, 2021) ("[W]e believe that the application of this exemption should be limited to determining whether litigation is pending and whether the records that the requesting party seeks pertain to that pending litigation."); see also Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 21-IB20, 2021 WL 4351857, at *2-3 (Sept. 14, 2021).
[17] Grimaldi, 2016 WL 4411329, at *9-10 (dismissing the plaintiff's claim that the public body violated FOIA by denying a pre-litigation request for a resume because this requested resume was exempt from disclosure under the pending litigation exemption); Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 16-IB15, 2016 WL 3462346, at *4 (Jun. 10, 2016) (applying the test for pending litigation exemption, instead of the test for potential litigation, when the petitioner filed suit not long after filing the petition with this Office).
[18] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10003(h)(2).
* * *
Original text here: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2025/06/04/25-ib31-6-04-25-foia-opinion-letter-to-tom-somers-jr-re-delaware-department-of-correction-and-delaware-state-police-department-of-safety-and-homeland-security/
Colo. A.G. Weiser: Fraudulent EMT Indicted After Providing Unlicensed Medical Care to Over 100 Patients
DENVER, Colorado, June 5 -- Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser issued the following news release:
* * *
Fraudulent EMT indicted after providing unlicensed medical care to over 100 patients
June 4, 2025 (DENVER) - The statewide grand jury indicted Lauren Wilson, 53, for falsely claiming to be a certified paramedic and fraudulently practicing medicine without a license, Attorney General Phil Weiser announced today.
"In Colorado, fraudulently representing oneself as a certified medical professional is a crime. It's also illegal to submit false information to obtain state certification. We are
... Show Full Article
DENVER, Colorado, June 5 -- Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser issued the following news release:
* * *
Fraudulent EMT indicted after providing unlicensed medical care to over 100 patients
June 4, 2025 (DENVER) - The statewide grand jury indicted Lauren Wilson, 53, for falsely claiming to be a certified paramedic and fraudulently practicing medicine without a license, Attorney General Phil Weiser announced today.
"In Colorado, fraudulently representing oneself as a certified medical professional is a crime. It's also illegal to submit false information to obtain state certification. We arecommitted to holding accountable those who engage in this harmful conduct and protecting victims and their health care," said Attorney General Weiser.
According to the indictment returned on May 1, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment issued a paramedic certificate to Wilson in 2009. In 2011, CDPHE became aware that Wilson had an undisclosed criminal history under a different spelling of his name that constituted grounds to revoke his certification. In 2012, before CDPHE could complete the revocation process, Wilson's paramedic certificate expired. He has not been certified or licensed to provide emergency medical services in Colorado since 2012.
In 2022, CDPHE became aware that Wilson had resumed working as a paramedic in an ambulance company despite not being certified, providing unauthorized medical care to over 100 patients. In most instances, he was the only purported paramedic in the ambulance when transporting patients in critical condition to hospital emergency rooms. On some occasions, Wilson made the medical decision to transport patients against their will or without their consent.
On Sept. 29, 2022, Wilson reapplied for paramedic certification. In his application, he falsified his birth date and falsely represented that he had never been charged or convicted of a misdemeanor or felony offense. He also submitted a background report that was based on the false birth date and did not identify his criminal history.
Furthermore, in 2021 and again in 2022, Wilson gained employment with medical services companies by falsely represented that he was certified as a paramedic. He also submitted to both companies a forged Colorado driver license reflecting a false birth date, with the apparent purpose of concealing his criminal history.
The indictment charges Wilson with one count of attempting to influence a public servant, a class 4 felony; two counts of forgery of a government issued document, a class 5 felony; and five counts of unauthorized practice of medicine while fraudulently representing to be a certified professional, a class 6 felony. Wilson was arrested May 29 and released from the Aurora Municipal Detention Center on a $50,000 bond.
The investigation was conducted by the Special Prosecutions Unit of the Colorado Attorney General's Office. The case is being prosecuted in Arapahoe County District Court under case number 25CR1089. Read the statewide grand jury indictment (PDF).
A grand jury indictment is a formal accusation that an individual committed a crime under Colorado laws. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
###
Media Contact:
Lawrence Pacheco
Chief Communications Officer
(720) 508-6553 office
lawrence.pacheco@coag.gov
* * *
Original text here: https://coag.gov/2025/fraudulent-emt-indicted-after-providing-unlicensed-medical-care-to-over-100-patients/
Colo. A.G. Phil Weiser Urges Federal Court to Ensure Voters and Private Groups Can Sue Over Voting Rights Violations
DENVER, Colorado, June 5 -- Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General Phil Weiser urges federal court to ensure voters and private groups can sue over voting rights violations
June 4, 2025 (DENVER) - Attorney General Phil Weiser today joined a coalition of 18 other attorneys general in filing a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit urging the full court to uphold protections in the Voting Rights Act that ensure private citizens can sue the government if their voting rights are denied due to racial discrimination.
"Protecting
... Show Full Article
DENVER, Colorado, June 5 -- Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General Phil Weiser urges federal court to ensure voters and private groups can sue over voting rights violations
June 4, 2025 (DENVER) - Attorney General Phil Weiser today joined a coalition of 18 other attorneys general in filing a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit urging the full court to uphold protections in the Voting Rights Act that ensure private citizens can sue the government if their voting rights are denied due to racial discrimination.
"Protectingvoting rights against racial discrimination means ensuring every voter can cast a ballot and every legislative district truly represents its population," said Attorney General Weiser. "Keeping the promise of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people means protecting access to the legal system, and I am urging the court not to strip the American people of their ability to sue when they believe their voting rights have been violated. I will always fight for the right of the people to vote free of discrimination or intimidation."
Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act in 1965 to guarantee that voting rights would not be denied or restricted based on race. Section 2 of the law specifically prohibits state and local governments from enacting such racially discriminatory policies.
In 2022, individual voters and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians filed a lawsuit challenging North Dakota's recently enacted legislative map. After a trial, a district court found that the map diluted Native Americans' votes, making it nearly impossible for them to have influence in the electoral process. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision and, despite the long-held practice of allowing individual citizens to sue to enforce Section 2, held that only the U.S. attorney general could sue to ensure the rights of voters in the Eighth Circuit.
In their brief, the coalition argues that private enforcement of the Voting Rights Act is essential, having served as the primary method of enforcing the law since its enactment. The coalition notes that approximately 400 private Section 2 cases have been filed nationwide, compared to only about 40 brought by the United States. The government lacks the resources to monitor, investigate, and prosecute voting rights violations in every corner of the country, risking leaving voters with no recourse when their rights are violated.
The coalition also explains that lawsuits brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act often have a high degree of urgency since they typically pertain to upcoming elections. Without the private right of action, Americans may be limited to simply sharing their concerns with the federal government and then waiting to see whether their voting rights will be defended.
Additionally, limiting the rights of people to sue under Section 2 could reduce incentives for states and local governments to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The coalition points to voting restrictions put in place after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down provisions in the law that required certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to receive federal pre-approval before changing voting laws.
Read the brief filed today in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe (https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2025/06/2025.06.04-Turtle-Mountain-3655-Amicus-brief-rehearing-en-banc-Final.pdf).
###
Media Contact:
Lawrence Pacheco
Chief Communications Officer
(720) 508-6553 office
lawrence.pacheco@coag.gov
* * *
Original text here: https://coag.gov/press-releases/attorney-general-phil-weiser-voting-rights-act-eighth-circuit-6-4-25/
Colo. A.G. Phil Weiser Fights to Protect Youth From Harmful Conversion Therapy
DENVER, Colorado, June 5 -- Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General Phil Weiser fights to protect youth from harmful conversion therapy
June 4, 2025 (DENVER) -- Colorado today joined a multistate coalition in a court brief defending a Michigan law that prohibits licensed health professionals from practicing conversion therapy on minors. The practice, also called sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts, attempts to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity and is widely discredited as harmful and ineffective by
... Show Full Article
DENVER, Colorado, June 5 -- Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General Phil Weiser fights to protect youth from harmful conversion therapy
June 4, 2025 (DENVER) -- Colorado today joined a multistate coalition in a court brief defending a Michigan law that prohibits licensed health professionals from practicing conversion therapy on minors. The practice, also called sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts, attempts to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity and is widely discredited as harmful and ineffective byleading national health organizations.
"So-called conversion therapy is an inhumane and abusive practice overwhelmingly shown to harm young people," said Attorney General Phil Weiser. "We have a compelling interest in protecting children from this dangerous pseudoscience. Colorado stands firmly with Michigan in protecting professional standards of care to prioritize the well-being of our youth."
Michigan's law, which bans the use of conversion therapy on children and youth by licensed professionals, is currently being challenged before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The brief filed by 19 states and the District of Columbia supports the law, arguing that conversion therapy is not only ineffective and unsafe, but harmful, leading to increased risks of suicide, depression, and other serious mental health issues. The brief underscores that such practices fall well below the accepted standard of care for mental health practitioners.
Colorado is one of more than 25 states that bans or restricts conversion therapy and is currently defending its law before the U.S. Supreme Court in Chiles v. Salazar. The case challenges the state's authority to prohibit licensed professionals from engaging in this discredited and dangerous intervention. The practice itself is condemned by every major medical and mental health organization in the country, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association.
The brief urges the court to uphold Michigan's law, arguing that the First Amendment does not prevent states from regulating dangerous or ineffective health practices, nor does it allow licensed providers to operate below a certain standard of care. Michigan's ban is consistent with states' long history of establishing and regulating professional standards of care, and striking down the ban would likely create profound unintended consequences for states' authority to regulate professional practices within their borders as they have throughout most of the nation's history.
Read a copy of the brief (https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2025/06/042_AmicusBr_States.pdf).
Joining Attorney General Weiser on the brief are the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
###
Media Contact:
Lawrence Pacheco
Chief Communications Officer
(720) 508-6553 office
lawrence.pacheco@coag.gov
* * *
Original text here: https://coag.gov/2025/protect-youth-from-harmful-conversion-therapy/
