Attorney General
Here's a look at documents from state attorneys general
Featured Stories
Del. Chief Deputy A.G. Logan Issues Opinion on Redding Consortium for Educational Equity
DOVER, Delaware, Dec. 24 -- Delaware Chief Deputy Attorney General Daniel Logan issued the following opinion (No. 25-IB66) on Jan. 22, 2025:
* * *
To: Brandy Topolski, btopolski25@gmail.com
RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Redding Consortium for Educational Equity
Dear Ms. Topolski:
We write regarding your correspondence alleging that the Redding Consortium for Educational Equity violated the Delaware Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. Sec.Sec. 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). We treat your correspondence as a Petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. Sec. 10005 regarding whether a violation
... Show Full Article
DOVER, Delaware, Dec. 24 -- Delaware Chief Deputy Attorney General Daniel Logan issued the following opinion (No. 25-IB66) on Jan. 22, 2025:
* * *
To: Brandy Topolski, btopolski25@gmail.com
RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Redding Consortium for Educational Equity
Dear Ms. Topolski:
We write regarding your correspondence alleging that the Redding Consortium for Educational Equity violated the Delaware Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. Sec.Sec. 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). We treat your correspondence as a Petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. Sec. 10005 regarding whether a violationof FOIA has occurred or is about to occur. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the Consortium did not violate FOIA at the November 18, 2025 meeting. The remaining claims are not appropriate for consideration.
BACKGROUND
The Consortium is a "legislatively created body charged with developing a proposal for redistricting the school districts in the City of Wilmington and northern New Castle County . . . to recommend to the State Board of Education."[1] The Consortium held a public meeting on November 18, 2025. This Petition followed.
In the Petition, you allege that the Consortium violated the open meeting requirements in several ways. You argue that the Consortium created impermissible access barriers to this meeting, because the November 18, 2025 meeting link required you to create or sign in with a personal account to join the meeting, and when you entered the meeting, you were placed in a host-controlled waiting room. You contend that the Consortium restricted public access to other previous unspecified meetings, including by using host-controlled waiting rooms, delaying or denying the admittance of attendees, and requiring logins through Zoom or third-party authentication. You also assert that the Consortium has ongoing transparency problems, including non-responsiveness to requests, difficulty obtaining records, confusion over the custody of records due to University's supportive role to the Consortium, denying or redirecting requests for Consortium records pursuant to the University of Delaware's FOIA exception, and failing to publish data, assumptions and analyses that are central to decision-making. You argue that the Consortium schedules meetings at the same time as other major educational bodies, making meaningful participation nearly impossible.
On December 1, 2025, the Consortium, through its legal counsel, replied to the Petition and enclosed the affidavit of the Assistant Policy Scientist who administered the relevant meeting ("Response"). The Assistant Policy Scientist attests the statements in the Response were correct to the best of the Assistant Policy Scientist's knowledge. The Consortium is comprised of twenty-four voting members, and thirteen members is a quorum. The Consortium explained that it has hosted multiple meetings to provide the public insight into and to receive feedback on redistricting proposals under consideration. At the November 18, 2025 Town Hall meeting, one Consortium member spoke, and six other members attended as silent observers; after the brief presentation, the floor was opened for comments and questions from the public. The Consortium argues that this meeting, which was attended by less than a quorum of members, was not a public meeting subject to FOIA's open meeting requirements.
Even if the meeting was subject to FOIA, the Consortium argues that the meeting was compliant with FOIA. The Consortium states that the Zoom settings for this meeting included a "feature that requires individuals who join a Zoom meeting from a web browser to create or sign into an account with Zoom before joining the meeting."[2] The Consortium also acknowledges that all the attendees and members were admitted to a host-controlled waiting room prior to the meeting. Such practices, the Consortium argues, did not restrict the public's access, as evidenced by the large number of attendees. The Consortium contends that your broad claims about previous Consortium meetings are too general to allow for a tailored response. With respect to the treatment of the Consortium records as public records specific to the University of Delaware, the Consortium agrees that this practice should be altered and commits to direct the FOIA coordinator to respond as if the Consortium was the relevant public body custodian, rather than the University. Regarding the meeting scheduling, the Consortium notes that it endeavors to schedule according to times most convenient for all members and stakeholders but cannot guarantee that all Consortium members and the public can attend every meeting. The Consortium argues that any overlap in scheduling meetings does not constitute a violation of FOIA.
DISCUSSION
Delaware's FOIA law "was enacted 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."[3] FOIA mandates that public bodies meet specific requirements when holding public meetings, including advance notice, posting notices and agendas, an opportunity for public comment, and maintaining meeting minutes.[4] A meeting of a public body must be open to the public, except in limited circumstances.[5] The public body has the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with FOIA.[6] In certain circumstances, a sworn affidavit may be required to meet that burden.[7]
As an initial matter, the Petition's general allegations regarding unspecified past meetings and public records requests are not sufficiently specific to allow for consideration. Further, the Petition's final claim regarding scheduling overlaps between the meetings of public bodies that handle related matters is not addressed through the FOIA statute and is not appropriately considered through the FOIA petition process initiated under Section 10005.[8]
The remaining issue is whether the Consortium violated FOIA at the November 18, 2025 meeting in providing virtual access through a host-controlled waiting room with a sign-in or account requirement. A meeting under FOIA is defined as "the formal or informal gathering of a quorum of the members of any public body for the purpose of discussing or taking action on public business."[9] The Consortium provided sworn statements that less than a quorum attended the meeting and only one member spoke during the meeting.[10] Based on these representations under oath, we find that a quorum of members did not engage in discussions or taking action on public business; thus, we find this was not a "meeting" as defined by FOIA.[11] We determine that the Consortium did not violate FOIA, as this meeting was not subject to the open meeting requirements.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Consortium did not violate FOIA at the November 18, 2025 meeting. The remaining claims are not appropriate for consideration.
Very truly yours,
Daniel Logan, Chief Deputy Attorney General
cc: Caroline M. McDonough, Deputy Attorney General
Dorey L. Cole, Deputy Attorney General
* * *
Footnotes:
[1] Response, p. 3.
[2] Response, p. 2.
[3] Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996, 1004 (Del. 2021).
[4] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10004.
[5] Id.
[6] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10005(c).
[7] Judicial Watch, Inc.,267 A.3d at 1008-1012.
[8] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10005(e).
[9] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10002(j).
[10] Response, Aff. of Assistant Policy Scientist Haley Qaissaunee dated Dec. 1, 2025.
[11] Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 18-IB41, 2018 WL 4385004, at *2 (Aug. 28, 2018) (finding no violation of FOIA when a quorum attended a committee meeting but did not discuss, deliberate, or reach a vote or consensus regarding public business); Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 18-IB07, 2018 WL 1061277, at *2 (Feb. 9, 2018) (determining that a gathering of a quorum of councilmembers at a press conference did not constitute a "meeting" under FOIA because the Office had "no evidence of a discussion among the attending councilmembers during the press conference.") (emphasis added).
* * *
Original text here: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2025/12/22/25-ib66-12-22-2025-foia-opinion-letter-to-brandy-topolski-re-redding-consortium-for-educational-equity/
Attorney General Tong Files Lawsuit Challenging Federal Attack on Gender-Affirming Care
HARTFORD, Connecticut, Dec. 24 -- Connecticut Attorney General William Tong issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General Tong Files Lawsuit Challenging Federal Attack on Gender-Affirming Care
*
(Hartford, CT) - Attorney General William Tong today joined a multistate coalition of 18 other attorneys general in suing to ensure the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot threaten providers with a so-called declaration that baselessly and unlawfully attempts to limit access to gender-affirming care for young people. The declaration falsely claims that
... Show Full Article
HARTFORD, Connecticut, Dec. 24 -- Connecticut Attorney General William Tong issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General Tong Files Lawsuit Challenging Federal Attack on Gender-Affirming Care
*
(Hartford, CT) - Attorney General William Tong today joined a multistate coalition of 18 other attorneys general in suing to ensure the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot threaten providers with a so-called declaration that baselessly and unlawfully attempts to limit access to gender-affirming care for young people. The declaration falsely claims thatcertain forms of gender-affirming care are "unsafe and ineffective" and threatens to punish any doctors, hospitals, and clinics that continue to provide it with exclusion from the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. Attorney General Tong and the coalition argue that this declaration violates federal statutes by unlawfully changing medical standards without going through the notice and comment process and undermining states' long-standing authority to regulate medicine. The coalition is asking the court to intervene and set aside the unlawful and arbitrary declaration.
"Trump and RFK Jr. are forcing a radical political agenda on doctors and families and weaponizing Medicare and Medicaid funding to deny healthcare to kids. These extreme actions threaten to decimate medical providers nationwide unless they end gender-affirming care, supplanting medical expertise and parental choice with MAGA ideology. This is cruel and lawless, and we're suing to block them," said Attorney General Tong.
On December 18, HHS published a document that the agency called a "declaration," claiming that certain forms of gender-affirming care are "unsafe and ineffective." In the declaration, Secretary Kennedy claimed to give HHS the power to exclude health care providers and institutions from federally funded healthcare programs simply for providing health care for transgender adolescents. The agency also announced two proposed rules that would completely bar gender-affirming care providers and associated hospitals from participating in Medicare and Medicaid and ban payments for transgender health care through Medicaid. These rules have not yet gone into effect, and HHS has given the public until February 17, 2026 to submit comments on the proposals.
Attorney General Tong and the coalition argue that HHS is attempting to use the declaration to circumvent basic legal requirements for policy changes. Federal law requires agencies to provide the public with notice and an opportunity to comment before making significant changes to health care policy. Instead, HHS issued what it arbitrarily called a declaration and attempted to make it effective nationwide immediately, without consulting doctors, patients, or states. The attorneys general contend that this is a clear overreach by the federal government, given that HHS does not have the authority to take such an action. For generations, states, not the federal government, have been responsible for regulating the practice of medicine. Indeed, Congress expressly prohibits any federal officer from exercising any supervision or control over the practice of medicine. By attempting to impose a single nationwide standard and threatening to punish providers who adhere to well-established, evidence-based care, HHS is unlawfully interfering in decisions that should be made by doctors and their patients.
The attorneys general warn that HHS will attempt to use this unlawful action to enact immediate and widespread consequences. For transgender youth and their families, it creates fear and uncertainty about whether ongoing care could suddenly be taken away. For doctors and hospitals, it threatens severe penalties simply for treating their patients with evidence-based, medically necessary care. For states, it puts Medicaid programs at risk - programs that millions of people depend on for everyday and lifesaving care. States rely on broad networks of providers to deliver essential health services. By threatening to disqualify providers who offer gender-affirming care, the federal government is forcing doctors to choose between abandoning their patients or risking their livelihoods. This pressure would reduce access to care, worsen provider shortages, and harm Medicaid patients far beyond those seeking gender-affirming care.
Attorney General Tong and the coalition are asking the court to rule the HHS declaration unlawful and block its enforcement.
Joining Attorney General Tong in this lawsuit, which was led by the attorneys general of New York, Oregon, and Washington, are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the governor of Pennsylvania.
Twitter: @AGWilliamTong
Facebook: CT Attorney General
Media Contact:
Elizabeth Benton
elizabeth.benton@ct.gov
Consumer Inquiries:
860-808-5318
attorney.general@ct.gov
***
Original text here: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/press-releases/2025-press-releases/attorney-general-tong-files-lawsuit-challenging-federal-attack-on-gender-affirming-care
Attorney General Phil Weiser suit challenges federal attack on gender-affirming care
DENVER, Colorado, Dec. 24 -- Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General Phil Weiser suit challenges federal attack on gender-affirming care
*
Dec. 24, 2025 (DENVER) Attorney General Phil Weiser today joined a multistate coalition of states in filing a lawsuit to block an unlawful declaration from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. that threatens health care providers and attempts to restrict access to gender-affirming health care for young people.
The lawsuit challenges a so-called "declaration" issued by Secretary
... Show Full Article
DENVER, Colorado, Dec. 24 -- Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General Phil Weiser suit challenges federal attack on gender-affirming care
*
Dec. 24, 2025 (DENVER) Attorney General Phil Weiser today joined a multistate coalition of states in filing a lawsuit to block an unlawful declaration from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. that threatens health care providers and attempts to restrict access to gender-affirming health care for young people.
The lawsuit challenges a so-called "declaration" issued by SecretaryKennedy that falsely claims certain forms of gender-affirming care are "unsafe and ineffective" and threatens doctors, hospitals, and clinics that provide this care from participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Attorney General Weiser and the coalition argue that the declaration violates federal law by bypassing required notice-and-comment procedures and unlawfully intruding on states' authority to regulate the practice of medicine.
"Gender-affirming care is legally protected in Colorado and upending it would harm transgender Coloradans who depend on it. Secretary Kennedy's so-called declaration is a blatant abuse of power and threatens to bankrupt hospitals and providers," said Attorney General Weiser. "This action also seeks to replace decades of medical research and rewrite medical guidelines nationwide. The Trump administration is hellbent on turning back the clock, bullying hospitals and providers, and cutting families off from trusted, essential care. That is unlawful and cruel, and we are challenging it in court."
On Dec. 18, HHS issued the declaration and announced proposed rules that would bar gender-affirming care providers and associated hospitals from participating in Medicare and Medicaid and prohibit Medicaid payments for transgender health care. Those proposed rules are not yet in effect, and public comments are being accepted through February 17, 2026.
The attorneys general contend that HHS lacks the authority to impose a nationwide standard for medical care without following federal law. For generations, states have regulated the practice of medicine, and medical decisions should be made by patients and their doctors not federal political appointees. The declaration creates fear and uncertainty for families and places doctors at risk of severe penalties simply for providing medically appropriate care.
In Colorado, gender-affirming health care is legally protected. State-regulated health insurance plans are prohibited from withholding coverage from individuals based on gender identity. Additionally, state health care regulatory boards cannot deny licensure or impose disciplinary action against a provider's license based solely on the provision of gender-affirming care so long as the care meets generally accepted standards of medical practice in Colorado.
Attorney General Weiser and the coalition are asking the court to declare the HHS declaration unlawful and block its enforcement.
The lawsuit is led by the attorneys general of New York, Oregon, and Washington. Joining them are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the governor of Pennsylvania.
Read the complaint State of Oregon v. Kennedy (PDF).
Media Contact:
Lawrence Pacheco
Chief Communications Officer
(720) 508-6553 office
lawrence.pacheco@coag.gov
***
Original text here: https://coag.gov/press-releases/weiser-suit-challenges-federal-attack-on-gender-affirming-care/
Attorney General James' Office of Special Investigation Opens Investigation into Civilian Death in Monroe County
ALBANY, New York, Dec. 24 -- New York Attorney General Letitia James issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General James' Office of Special Investigation Opens Investigation into Civilian Death in Monroe County
*
NEW YORK - The New York Attorney General's Office of Special Investigation (OSI) has opened an investigation into the death of Eric Davis, who died on December 19, 2025 following an encounter with members of the Rochester Police Department (RPD) in Rochester, Monroe County.
At approximately 10:23 p.m. on December 19, two RPD officers responded to a house in Rochester following
... Show Full Article
ALBANY, New York, Dec. 24 -- New York Attorney General Letitia James issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General James' Office of Special Investigation Opens Investigation into Civilian Death in Monroe County
*
NEW YORK - The New York Attorney General's Office of Special Investigation (OSI) has opened an investigation into the death of Eric Davis, who died on December 19, 2025 following an encounter with members of the Rochester Police Department (RPD) in Rochester, Monroe County.
At approximately 10:23 p.m. on December 19, two RPD officers responded to a house in Rochester followinga 911 call reporting a man attempting to break in. Two officers saw Mr. Davis standing at the side of the house and told him to show his hands. Mr. Davis fired at the officers with a handgun, striking them, and at least one of the two officers fired at Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis fled on foot. A third officer saw him a few blocks away from the house and told him to stop and show his hands. Mr. Davis fired a gun at the officer, striking him, and the officer fired at Mr. Davis. A fourth officer arrived and ordered Mr. Davis to get on the ground and fired at him. Mr. Davis was struck by gunfire and was pronounced dead at the scene. Officers recovered a handgun near Mr. Davis, at the scene.
The three officers and a civilian who sustained injuries during the encounter were hospitalized and are being treated for their injuries. One officer has been discharged. All are expected to recover.
Pursuant to New York State Executive Law Section 70-b, OSI assesses every incident reported to it where a police officer or a peace officer, including a corrections officer, may have caused the death of a person by an act or omission. Under the law, the officer may be on-duty or off-duty, and the decedent may be armed or unarmed. Also, the decedent may or may not be in custody or incarcerated. If OSI's assessment indicates an officer may have caused the death, OSI proceeds to conduct a full investigation of the incident.
These are preliminary facts and subject to change.
***
Original text here: https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2025/attorney-general-james-office-special-investigation-opens-investigation-38
Attorney General James Reminds Airline Travelers of Their Rights After Federal Administration Rolls Back Consumer Protection Rules
ALBANY, New York, Dec. 24 -- New York Attorney General Letitia James issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General James Reminds Airline Travelers of Their Rights After Federal Administration Rolls Back Consumer Protection Rules
*
NEW YORK - New York Attorney General Letitia James today issued a consumer alert urging New Yorkers planning to fly during the holiday season to know their rights when faced with cancellations, severe delays, or other issues with airlines. Attorney General James urges all New Yorkers to file complaints online to potentially receive compensation if their
... Show Full Article
ALBANY, New York, Dec. 24 -- New York Attorney General Letitia James issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General James Reminds Airline Travelers of Their Rights After Federal Administration Rolls Back Consumer Protection Rules
*
NEW YORK - New York Attorney General Letitia James today issued a consumer alert urging New Yorkers planning to fly during the holiday season to know their rights when faced with cancellations, severe delays, or other issues with airlines. Attorney General James urges all New Yorkers to file complaints online to potentially receive compensation if theirtravel plans are disrupted.
"As New Yorkers head to the airport for the busiest travel days of the year, my office is going the extra mile to make sure they are treated fairly," said Attorney General James. "I urge all New York travelers to know their rights and file complaints with my office if they experience significant delays, flight cancellations, or are denied boarding after purchasing a ticket."
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has recently announced rollbacks of policies put in place during the prior administration that would ensure travelers receive compensation for certain delayed or canceled flights. However, travelers are still entitled to compensation in some cases of disrupted travel. Attorney General James urges all New Yorkers with air travel plans to know their rights and take the following steps to protect themselves during holiday travel:
* If a flight is significantly delayed, cancelled, or if a traveler is denied boarding despite purchasing a ticket, they may be entitled to compensation. Travelers can submit complaints online and should have the following documents and materials available to provide with their complaint:
* Booking details, such as their ticket, itinerary, and invoice;
* Flight details, such as dates, flight numbers, and city pairs; and
* Any supporting documentation, such as a copy of the complaint filed with the airline or ticket agent, if available.
* Travelers are eligible to receive a full refund on their ticket within 24 hours of purchasing it, if the ticket is purchased more than seven days before the flight. However, most discount fares are non-refundable.
* Travelers are entitled to a refund if an airline cancels a flight, regardless of the reason, and the consumer chooses not to travel or accept travel credits, vouchers, or other forms of compensation offered by the airline.
* Airlines are required to adhere to the promises that they make in their customer service plan, including commitments to care for travelers in the event of controllable delays or cancellations. Travelers should consult the DOT's airline cancellation and delay dashboard to see what amenities and compensation airlines have committed to provide passengers in the event of a controllable delay or cancellation.
* If a flight is scheduled to depart within seven days, airlines are required to provide status updates within 30 minutes of the airline becoming aware of a change. The flight status information must, at a minimum, be provided on the airline's website and telephone reservation system. The airline must also update all flight status displays and other sources of flight information at U.S. airports that are under the airline's control within 30 minutes of the airline becoming aware of the problem.
* If an airline has overbooked a flight and not enough passengers have volunteered to give up their seats to fly on a different flight, they may select passengers to bump off the flight. Passengers who are bumped may be entitled to compensation and must receive a written statement describing their rights and explaining how the airline decides who gets bumped.
* Travelers are entitled to refunds of their checked bag fees if their baggage:
* Has been declared lost by the airline;
* Is not delivered within 12 hours after the flight has arrived if it is on a domestic flight;
* Is not delivered within 15 hours after the flight has arrived if the flight is international and shorter than 12 hours; or
* Is not delivered within 30 hours after the flight has arrived if the flight is international and longer than 12 hours.
New Yorkers who wish to file a complaint concerning air travel can do so online or by calling the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) at 1-800-771-7755.
Attorney General James has consistently taken action to protect New York travelers from being taken advantage of. In May 2023, Attorney General James supported new DOT rules requiring airlines to compensate passengers for cancellations or significant delays. These came after Attorney General James called on DOT in August 2022 to take specific actions to crack down on airlines and prevent future delays and cancellations. In March 2022, Attorney General James secured $2.6 million from an online travel agency, Fareportal Inc., for misleading consumers with false information about airline tickets and hotel rooms. In September 2021, Attorney General James urged DOT to take action to end airline "slot-squatting," which is when airlines occupy flight slots at airports but under-utilize them, holding on to slots simply to prevent them from being used by their competitors, which inconveniences travelers.
***
Original text here: https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2025/attorney-general-james-reminds-airline-travelers-their-rights-after-federal
Attorney General Bonta Issues Consumer Alert on Price Gouging Following State of Emergency Declaration in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Shasta Counties
SACRAMENTO, California, Dec. 24 -- California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General Bonta Issues Consumer Alert on Price Gouging Following State of Emergency Declaration in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Shasta Counties
*
OAKLAND -- California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert following the Governor's declaration of a state of emergency in response to powerful winter storms.
A series of atmospheric rivers has brought high-intensity rainfall and strong winds statewide to already saturated
... Show Full Article
SACRAMENTO, California, Dec. 24 -- California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General Bonta Issues Consumer Alert on Price Gouging Following State of Emergency Declaration in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Shasta Counties
*
OAKLAND -- California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert following the Governor's declaration of a state of emergency in response to powerful winter storms.
A series of atmospheric rivers has brought high-intensity rainfall and strong winds statewide to already saturatedsoils, heightening the risk of rapidly rising creeks and rivers, flooding, landslides, and debris flows especially to recently burned areas.
In today's alert, Attorney General Bonta reminds all Californians that price gouging during a state of emergency is illegal under Penal Code Section 396. Californians who believe they have been the victim of price gouging should report it to their local authorities or to the Attorney General at oag.ca.gov/report.
To view a list of all price gouging restrictions currently in effect as a result of proclamations by the Governor, please visit the Governor's Office of Emergency Services Price Gouging webpage.
"As incoming heavy rain and strong winds increase the risk of flooding and landslides, I urge Californians up and down the state to listen to communication from officials and keep safe especially if you have travel plans this holiday season. California's price gouging law protects people impacted by an emergency from illegal price gouging on housing, gas, food, and other essential supplies," said Attorney General Bonta. "If you see price gouging or if you've been the victim of it I encourage you to immediately file a complaint with my office online at oag.ca.gov/report or contact your local police department or sheriff's office."
California law generally prohibits charging a price that exceeds, by more than 10%, the price a seller charged for an item before a state or local declaration of emergency. For items a seller only began selling after an emergency declaration, the law generally prohibits charging a price that exceeds the seller's cost of the item by more than 50%. This law applies to those who sell food, emergency supplies, medical supplies, building materials, and gasoline. The law also applies to repair or reconstruction services, emergency cleanup services, transportation, freight and storage services, hotel accommodations, and rental housing. Exceptions to this prohibition exist if, for example, the price of labor, goods, or materials has increased for the business.
Violations of the price gouging statute are misdemeanors that are subject to criminal prosecution that can result in imprisonment and/or a fine. They can also result in civil enforcement actions, including civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, injunctive relief, and restitution. The Attorney General and local district attorneys and city prosecutors can enforce the statute.
***
Original text here: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-issues-consumer-alert-price-gouging-following-state-15
AG Brown co-leads multistate challenge to federal attack on gender-affirming care
OLYMPIA, Washington, Dec. 24 -- Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown issued the following news release:
* * *
AG Brown co-leads multistate challenge to federal attack on gender-affirming care
*
Attorney General Nick Brown is co-leading a multistate coalition of 19 other states suing to make clear that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot threaten providers with a so-called "declaration" that baselessly and unlawfully attempts to limit access to gender-affirming care for young people.
Kennedy's declaration falsely claims
... Show Full Article
OLYMPIA, Washington, Dec. 24 -- Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown issued the following news release:
* * *
AG Brown co-leads multistate challenge to federal attack on gender-affirming care
*
Attorney General Nick Brown is co-leading a multistate coalition of 19 other states suing to make clear that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot threaten providers with a so-called "declaration" that baselessly and unlawfully attempts to limit access to gender-affirming care for young people.
Kennedy's declaration falsely claimsthat certain forms of gender-affirming care are "unsafe and ineffective" and threatens to punish doctors, hospitals, and clinics that continue to provide it with exclusion from the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. Brown and the coalition argue this declaration violates federal statutes by unlawfully changing medical standards without going through the notice and comment process and undermining states' long-standing authority to regulate medicine. The coalition is asking the court to set aside the unlawful declaration.
"The law does not change on one man's whim, and this care remains legal under federal and state law. The administration is stigmatizing young people and unlawfully trying to rob them of care that is lifesaving in some instances," Brown said. "This action is as cruel and unnecessary as it is illegal, but consistent with an administration that puts politics above health."
On December 18, HHS published a document the agency called a "declaration," In the declaration, Secretary Kennedy claimed to give HHS the power to exclude health care providers and institutions from the Medicare and Medicaid programs simply for providing medically necessary health care for transgender adolescents. The agency also announced two proposed rules that would completely bar gender-affirming care providers and associated hospitals from participating in Medicare and Medicaid and ban payments for transgender health care through Medicaid. The proposed rules have not yet gone into effect, and HHS has given the public until February 17, 2026, to submit comments on the proposals.
Brown and the coalition argue that HHS is attempting to use the declaration to circumvent basic legal requirements for policy changes. Federal law requires agencies to provide the public with notice and an opportunity to comment before making significant changes to health care policy. Instead, HHS issued what it arbitrarily called a declaration and attempted to make it effective nationwide immediately, without consulting doctors, patients, or states. The attorneys general contend that this is a clear overreach by the federal government, given that HHS does not have the authority to take such an action. For generations, statesnot the federal governmenthave been responsible for regulating the practice of medicine. By attempting to impose a single nationwide standard and threatening to punish providers who adhere to well-established, evidence-based care, HHS is unlawfully interfering in decisions that should be made by doctors and their patients.
Gender-affirming care is lawful and protected in Washington. These actions threaten to exclude up to nearly 6,000 distinct providers throughout the state who offer gender-affirming care through the Apple Health program.
For transgender youth and their families, it creates immediate fear and uncertainty about whether ongoing care could suddenly be taken away. For doctors and hospitals, it threatens severe penalties simply for treating their patients with evidence-based, medically necessary care. For states, it puts Medicaid programs at risk - programs that millions of people depend on for everyday and lifesaving care. States rely on broad networks of providers to deliver essential health services. By threatening to disqualify providers who offer gender-affirming care, the federal government is forcing doctors to choose between abandoning their patients or risking their livelihoods. This pressure would reduce access to care, worsen provider shortages, and harm Medicaid patients far beyond those seeking gender-affirming care.
Brown and the coalition are asking the court to rule the HHS declaration unlawful to stop its enforcement.
The attorneys general of Oregon and New York are co-leading the lawsuit with Washington. They are joined by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin, and the governor of Pennsylvania.
In a lawsuit filed earlier this year, Brown successfully obtained an injunction blocking President Trump's executive orders that threatened to withhold federal funding from medical institutions providing gender-affirming care to young people.
A copy of the complaint is available here.
***
Original text here: https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-brown-co-leads-multistate-challenge-federal-attack-gender-affirming-care
