Featured Stories
S.D. A.G. Jackley Announces State to Request Further Review Of Federal Ruling on State's Ballot-Question Petition Deadline
PIERRE, South Dakota, Aug. 12 -- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley issued the following news release on Aug. 11, 2026:
* * *
Attorney General Jackley Announces State to Request Further Review Of Federal Ruling on State's Ballot-Question Petition Deadline
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announces that the state will seek further review of a 2-1 panel decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that upheld a lower federal court ruling that prohibits the state from enforcing a new law that moved the election-year filing deadline for ballot-question petitions
... Show Full Article
PIERRE, South Dakota, Aug. 12 -- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley issued the following news release on Aug. 11, 2026:
* * *
Attorney General Jackley Announces State to Request Further Review Of Federal Ruling on State's Ballot-Question Petition Deadline
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announces that the state will seek further review of a 2-1 panel decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that upheld a lower federal court ruling that prohibits the state from enforcing a new law that moved the election-year filing deadline for ballot-question petitionsto nine months, from May to February.
Attorney General Jackley said the state plans to request that the entire 11-member Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals hear the case.
"While we respect the panel's decision, we still believe the South Dakota Legislature reached a fair solution to our petition process, without infringing on the First Amendment," said Attorney General Jackley. "We believe this case is worthy of being heard by the full court. As stated by Judge Lonken in his dissent, 'the Constitution does not authorize the federal court's micromanagement of state elections.'"
A bill passed by the 2025 South Dakota Legislature and signed by the Governor moved the filing deadline for ballot-questions petitions from May to February. Dakotans for Health had appealed that bill on the grounds that it reduced the circulation window for gathering petitions by three months. That appeal was upheld by a South Dakota federal court.
In its appeal to the Court of Appeals, the state argued that the February deadline allowed enough time for ballot measure supporters to gather signatures and for the Secretary of State's Office to determine the signatures were valid.
* * *
Original text here: https://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/Media/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=3132
S.D. A.G. Jackley Announces Federal Court Strikes Down Unconstitutional Firearm Restrictions
PIERRE, South Dakota, Aug. 12 -- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley issued the following news release on Aug. 11, 2026:
* * *
Attorney General Jackley Announces Federal Court Strikes Down Unconstitutional Firearm Restrictions
South Dakota Attorney Marty Jackley commends a Texas U.S. Federal Court decision that ruled the National Firearms Act (NFA)'s registrational regulations of short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers and other firearms are no longer valid.
South Dakota was one of 14 states to challenge the regulations. The Federal District Court determined that
... Show Full Article
PIERRE, South Dakota, Aug. 12 -- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley issued the following news release on Aug. 11, 2026:
* * *
Attorney General Jackley Announces Federal Court Strikes Down Unconstitutional Firearm Restrictions
South Dakota Attorney Marty Jackley commends a Texas U.S. Federal Court decision that ruled the National Firearms Act (NFA)'s registrational regulations of short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers and other firearms are no longer valid.
South Dakota was one of 14 states to challenge the regulations. The Federal District Court determined thatthe NFA's required registration of the firearms were only valid as a means of collecting taxes.
But once the taxes were eliminated in the Big Beautiful Bill, the Court ruled the regulations could no longer be enforced without taxing power.
"The federal government had used its taxing power to impose invasive registration mandates on law-abiding citizens," said Attorney General Jackley. "This is a victory for law-abiding gunowners and the Second Amendment."
Other states who joined the lawsuit are Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming,
Read the ruling here (https://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/Media/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=3131).
* * *
Original text here: https://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/Media/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=3131
R.I. A.G. Neronha, Coalition Sue to Block Trump Administration Effort to Take Money Away From Homeowners
PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island, Aug. 12 -- Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha issued the following news release on Aug. 11, 2026:
* * *
Attorney General Neronha, coalition sue to block Trump Administration effort to take money away from homeowners
Attorney General Peter F. Neronha today joined a coalition of 10 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit today to block the Trump Administration's latest effort to favor big business over working families.
In today's lawsuit, the attorneys general challenge a decision by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to preempt state laws
... Show Full Article
PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island, Aug. 12 -- Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha issued the following news release on Aug. 11, 2026:
* * *
Attorney General Neronha, coalition sue to block Trump Administration effort to take money away from homeowners
Attorney General Peter F. Neronha today joined a coalition of 10 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit today to block the Trump Administration's latest effort to favor big business over working families.
In today's lawsuit, the attorneys general challenge a decision by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to preempt state lawsthat require mortgage lenders to pay interest on the money they require borrowers to deposit into escrow accounts to cover taxes and insurance. OCC's decision ultimately results in less money being returned to homeowners and more money put into the pockets of big banks.
"Once again, this Administration is putting the interests of big corporations over the hard-working people of Rhode Island," said Attorney General Neronha. "In the midst of a national affordability crisis, those who have scraped together the money to buy their own home and stay in it can't afford to lose money they are entitled to under state law. These state consumer protection laws have been in place for decades to ensure that Rhode Island borrowers receive every penny they are due, and the Administration's attempt to pull a fast one on consumers is uncalled for and unlawful. We will fight to protect Rhode Island consumers every time this Administration tries to short-change them, and I am confident we will succeed."
Since the late 1930s, state and national banks making mortgage loans have typically required consumers to deposit funds into escrow accounts to cover property taxes and home insurance premiums associated with the property, in addition to making monthly principal and interest payments. Because homeowners make escrow payments monthly, but property taxes and insurance premiums are generally paid out of escrow annually or semi-annually, escrow accounts often carry significant positive balances throughout the year. Banks were thus obtaining "interest-free" loans from their own consumers.
In response, states including Rhode Island passed interest-on-escrow laws requiring banks to pay their customers minimum amounts of interest on the money deposited into escrow accounts. Rhode Island enacted an interest-on-escrow law in 1995 and updated it in 2008. Rhode Island's law results in borrowers recouping thousands of dollars in interest payments every year.
In May 2026, responding to a request from banking lobbyists, the OCC issued a rule that claims to preempt state interest-on-escrow laws, including Rhode Island. As detailed in the complaint, the OCC's rule ignores federal court rulings upholding state interest-on-escrow laws and disregards additional safeguards Congress put in place to prevent this kind of bureaucratic overreach. Additionally, because the rule only exempts national banks from Rhode Island's interest-on-escrow law, smaller, state-chartered banks are left at a competitive disadvantage.
The coalition argues that OCC's rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
Joining Attorney General Neronha in filing this lawsuit are the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Vermont.
* * *
Original text here: https://riag.ri.gov/press-releases/attorney-general-neronha-coalition-sue-block-trump-administration-effort-take-money
N.J. A.G. Office: State Grand Jury Declines to File Criminal Charges in Connection With an October 21, 2025, Fatal Police-Involved Shooting in Jersey City
TRENTON, New Jersey, Aug. 12 -- The New Jersey Attorney General Office issued the following news release on Aug. 11, 2026:
* * *
State Grand Jury Declines to File Criminal Charges in Connection with an October 21, 2025, Fatal Police-Involved Shooting in Jersey City
A state grand jury has voted not to file any criminal charges at the conclusion of its deliberations regarding the death of Teshawn Rogers, 27, of Jersey City. Mr. Rogers died on October 21, 2025, during an encounter with Jersey City police officers.
Mr. Rogers's death was investigated by the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability
... Show Full Article
TRENTON, New Jersey, Aug. 12 -- The New Jersey Attorney General Office issued the following news release on Aug. 11, 2026:
* * *
State Grand Jury Declines to File Criminal Charges in Connection with an October 21, 2025, Fatal Police-Involved Shooting in Jersey City
A state grand jury has voted not to file any criminal charges at the conclusion of its deliberations regarding the death of Teshawn Rogers, 27, of Jersey City. Mr. Rogers died on October 21, 2025, during an encounter with Jersey City police officers.
Mr. Rogers's death was investigated by the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability(OPIA) and presented to New Jersey residents serving on the grand jury in accordance with the Independent Prosecutor Directive of 2019, which was issued following the enactment of a state law requiring the Office of the Attorney General to investigate deaths that occur during an encounter with law enforcement.
The investigation included a review of surveillance video footage, body-worn camera footage, witness statements, medical records, and autopsy results from the medical examiner. This evidence was presented to a state grand jury. After hearing the testimony and evidence, the grand jury finished its deliberations on August 10, 2026, and voted "no bill," meaning jurors concluded no criminal charges should be filed against any involved officers.
The fatal police encounter involved members of the Jersey City Police Department's Street Crimes Unit, a unit that consists of plainclothes officers and utilizes unmarked vehicles. According to the investigation, officers assigned to the unit encountered Mr. Rogers in the area of Bergen and Virginia avenues shortly after 1:00 a.m. As Mr. Rogers was walking northbound on Bergen Avenue, two officers in an unmarked vehicle pulled to the side of the road ahead of Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers immediately discharged a firearm and ran southbound. The officers in the first vehicle did not discharge their weapons.
A separate police vehicle containing additional members of the unit pulled to the side of the road as Mr. Rogers ran southbound. Officer Lance Jackson exited from the passenger side of that vehicle and discharged his weapon, striking Mr. Rogers. Emergency medical aid was provided before Mr. Rogers was transported to a hospital, where he was pronounced deceased at approximately 1:44 a.m. A firearm was recovered at the scene.
Body-worn camera and surveillance footage, as well as radio transmissions, were previously released and are posted online at https://njoag.box.com/s/5pgcud5c4ne6wwnhmfxzvtqoguhx4lzf.
N.J.S.A. 52:17B-107(a)(2), requires the Attorney General's Office to conduct investigations of a person's death that occurs during an encounter with a law enforcement officer acting in the officer's official capacity or while the decedent is in custody. It requires that all such investigations be presented to a grand jury to determine if the evidence supports the return of an indictment against the involved officers. The grand jury is instructed on the elements of the potential criminal offenses, including criminal homicide offenses, that could be brought and as required by statutes, the grand jury is instructed on self-defense and other forms of legal justification.
A conflicts check was conducted pursuant to the Independent Prosecutor Directive and no actual or potential conflicts of interest were found involving any individual assigned to OPIA's investigation. Prior to presentation to the grand jury, the investigation was reviewed by an Independent Supervisory Reviewer in accordance with the policies and procedures established for these presentations.
Now that the investigation has concluded, pursuant to the Independent Prosecutor Directive and SOPs, OPIA will determine whether any officer should be referred to the appropriate law enforcement agency for administrative review in accordance with the AG's Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures. OPIA will monitor any resulting review and take such actions as are necessary to ensure that the review is completed in a timely fashion, and that appropriate actions are taken based on the results of the review.
Further information about how fatal police encounters are investigated in New Jersey under the Independent Prosecutor Directive can be found here (https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/ag-Directive-2019-4.pdf).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.njoag.gov/state-grand-jury-declines-to-file-criminal-charges-in-connection-with-an-october-21-2025-fatal-police-involved-shooting-in-jersey-city/
Md. A.G. Brown Sues to Block Trump Administration's Lawless Handout to Big Banks
BALTIMORE, Maryland, Aug. 12 -- Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown issued the following news release on Aug. 11, 2026:
* * *
Attorney General Brown Sues to Block Trump Administration's Lawless Handout to Big Banks
Rule lets big banks keep money that should be going back into Maryland homeowners' pockets
-
Attorney General Anthony G. Brown and a coalition of 10 attorneys general filed a lawsuit today to block the Trump administration's latest effort to favor big business over working families. The case challenges a decision by a little-known but powerful federal agency, the Office of
... Show Full Article
BALTIMORE, Maryland, Aug. 12 -- Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown issued the following news release on Aug. 11, 2026:
* * *
Attorney General Brown Sues to Block Trump Administration's Lawless Handout to Big Banks
Rule lets big banks keep money that should be going back into Maryland homeowners' pockets
-
Attorney General Anthony G. Brown and a coalition of 10 attorneys general filed a lawsuit today to block the Trump administration's latest effort to favor big business over working families. The case challenges a decision by a little-known but powerful federal agency, the Office ofthe Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), to invalidate state laws that require mortgage lenders to pay interest on the money they require borrowers to deposit into escrow accounts to cover taxes and insurance.
The result of the OCC's decision is to take money away from homeowners and put it right into the pockets of big banks.
"Maryland law says homeowners are entitled to interest on their own escrow money, and the OCC is trying to hand that money to big banks instead," said Attorney General Brown. "We are joining this lawsuit to protect homeowners and stop this rule before it costs them the interest they deserve."
In May 2026, responding to a request from banking lobbyists, the OCC issued a rule that claims to invalidate state laws - including Maryland - requiring lenders to share the money they earn on borrowers' escrowed funds with the borrowers themselves. According to the lawsuit, the OCC's rule ignores federal court rulings upholding state interest-on-escrow laws and skips the safeguards Congress put in place to prevent exactly this kind of bureaucratic overreach. If successful, the states' case will wipe the OCC's rule off the books and level the playing field between lenders and borrowers in Maryland.
It's not just borrowers who lose out under the OCC's rule. Because it only exempts national banks from Maryland's interest-on-escrow law, smaller, state-chartered banks are left at a competitive disadvantage.
The case, States of Oregon & New York, et al., v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency & Jonathan Gould, will be filed today in the U.S. District Court in Portland.
Joining Attorney General Brown in filing the lawsuit are the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
* * *
Original text here: https://oag.maryland.gov/News/pages/Attorney-General-Brown-Sues-to-Block-Trump-Administration%e2%80%99s-Lawless-Handout-to-Big-Banks.aspx
Ga. A.G. Carr, 15 Co-Signers Issue Letter to Congressional Leadership
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 12 (TNSletter) -- Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, with 15 co-signers issued the following letter to the Congressional leadership:
* * *
Here is the text of the letter:
August 6, 2026
The Honorable John Thune
Majority Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
-
The Honorable Mike Johnson
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
-
The Honorable Chuck Schumer
Minority Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
-
The Honorable Hakeem Jeffries
Minority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
-
Re:
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 12 (TNSletter) -- Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, with 15 co-signers issued the following letter to the Congressional leadership:
* * *
Here is the text of the letter:
August 6, 2026
The Honorable John Thune
Majority Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
-
The Honorable Mike Johnson
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
-
The Honorable Chuck Schumer
Minority Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
-
The Honorable Hakeem Jeffries
Minority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
-
Re:Support for the Safe Access to Cash Act
Leader Thune, Minority Leader Schumer, Speaker Johnson, and Minority Leader Jeffries:
We, the undersigned group of state attorneys general, write to express our support for the Safe Access to Cash Act, S. 3798/H.R. 1631, and we urge Congress to pass this important and needed public-safety legislation.
ATMs are a critical part of the nation's financial infrastructure. They provide consumers with immediate access to cash, support small businesses, and serve communities where bank branches may be limited or unavailable. For many seniors, rural residents, underbanked consumers, and cash-preferred households, safe access to ATMs is not just a convenience, it is a necessity.
We recognize that criminals are increasingly targeting ATMs, particularly standalone and offpremises machines located in convenience stores, gas stations, grocery stores, malls, and other public locations. These crimes can involve the theft, destruction, or attempted removal of entire ATM units; assaults on customers or service personnel; and coordinated criminal activity that crosses city, county, and state lines. This is precisely the type of problem that warrants a clear federal law enforcement backstop.
Current federal law provides strong penalties for robberies involving banks and financial institutions, but it does not provide the same consistent protection for all ATMs, particularly those located away from bank branches. That distinction no longer reflects how Americans Page 2 of access cash. The "bank vault" has moved into retail stores, gas stations, and community locations across the country, and federal law should reflect that reality.
The Safe Access to Cash Act would help close this gap by ensuring that crimes involving ATMs are subject to appropriate federal penalties, regardless of whether the ATM is located on the physical premises of a financial institution. This would provide law enforcement and prosecutors with clearer tools to pursue organized criminal networks that target ATMs and move across jurisdictional boundaries.
Importantly, this legislation would complement state and local law enforcement. State attorneys general and local prosecutors will continue to play a central role in combating theft, robbery, assault, and property crimes. But where ATM crimes involve interstate conduct, organized criminal networks, or repeated attacks across multiple jurisdictions, federal law should provide a clear and consistent framework for prosecution.
The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously advanced the Safe Access to Cash Act, demonstrating broad recognition that protecting ATMs is not a partisan issue. Passing this bill would help protect consumers, small businesses, ATM operators, cash-in-transit workers, first responders, and communities that rely on cash access. It will send a clear message that Congress will not allow criminal networks to exploit outdated gaps in federal law.
We respectfully urge Congress to pass the Safe Access to Cash Act without delay.
Sincerely,
Christopher M. Carr, Georgia Attorney General
Steve Marshall, Alabama Attorney General
Tim Griffin, Arkansas Attorney General
Russell Coleman, Kentucky Attorney General
Liz Murrill, Louisiana Attorney General
Catherine L. Hanaway, Missouri Attorney General
Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General
Drew Wrigley, North Dakota Attorney General
Andy Wilson, Ohio Attorney General
Dave Sunday, Pennsylvania Attorney General
Alan Wilson, South Carolina Attorney General
Marty Jackley, South Dakota Attorney General
Jonathan Skrmetti, Tennessee Attorney General
Derek Brown, Utah Attorney General
John B. McCuskey, West Virginia Attorney General
cc: The Honorable Chuck Grassley, Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Dick Durbin, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary
* * *
Original text and footnotes here: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/State-AGs-Safe-Access-to-Cash-Act-Support-Letter-08-06-26.pdf
News Release here: https://ago.mo.gov/attorney-general-hanaway-urges-congress-to-strengthen-federal-penalties-for-atm-attacks/
Ariz. A.G. Mayes Sues Out-of-State Landlords for Leaving Tucson Tenants Without AC in Summer Heat
PHOENIX, Arizona, Aug. 12 -- Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes issued the following news release on Aug. 11, 2026:
* * *
Attorney General Mayes Sues Out-of-State Landlords for Leaving Tucson Tenants Without AC in Summer Heat
Attorney General Kris Mayes today announced a lawsuit filed in Maricopa County, against the owners and managers of three affiliated apartment complexes in Tucson: Sedona Springs, Sienna Ridge, and Summit Ridge. The complexes house over one thousand units combined.
The lawsuit was filed August 7, 2026 against the three complexes' respective owners, members, and managers:
... Show Full Article
PHOENIX, Arizona, Aug. 12 -- Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes issued the following news release on Aug. 11, 2026:
* * *
Attorney General Mayes Sues Out-of-State Landlords for Leaving Tucson Tenants Without AC in Summer Heat
Attorney General Kris Mayes today announced a lawsuit filed in Maricopa County, against the owners and managers of three affiliated apartment complexes in Tucson: Sedona Springs, Sienna Ridge, and Summit Ridge. The complexes house over one thousand units combined.
The lawsuit was filed August 7, 2026 against the three complexes' respective owners, members, and managers:Sedona Springs AZ, Sienna Ridge AZ, Summit Ridge AZ, DMR Sedona Springs AZ, DMR Tucson 1166, and Tucson 1166 IG, as well as Dasmen Residential and Luxford Living.
"All Arizona residents who enter into rental agreements deserve living conditions that meet minimal standards of habitability," said Attorney General Mayes. "The ongoing neglect Dasmen Residential and Luxford Living continue to display by failing to supply adequate air conditioning to residents at Sedona Springs, Sienna Ridge, and Summit Ridge puts residents' lives at serious risk, especially during extreme summer heat."
The complaint and application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction allege a pattern of neglect and deception by the owners and operators of Sedona Springs, Sienna Ridge, and Summit Ridge dating back to at least 2023.
This summer alone, tenants at all three properties have struggled to cool their homes to the required Pima County standard of 80 degrees Fahrenheit or less. In fact, half of Sedona Springs has gone without central air of any kind since March. Those tenants have been left to rely on temporary, portable window units that often fail to cool more than one room in the apartments they pay to live in -- even as Arizona once again faces record-breaking summer temperatures. As a result, indoor temperatures at Sedona Springs, Sienna Ridge, and Summit Ridge have often exceeded 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
Attorney General Mayes previously issued cease-and-desist letters to each of the properties in 2026, requiring the owners and operators to fix the ongoing habitability concerns. However, temporary fixes -- such as the previously installed window units -- have not proven adequate for all tenants.
The complaint alleges that all three complexes suffer from a pattern of neglect, including broken windows, water and gas issues, structural problems, and pest infestations -- none of which are disclosed to prospective tenants before they sign a lease. These practices potentially violate the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.
Attorney General Mayes is seeking a permanent injunction requiring the owners and operators of all three properties to make necessary repairs to comply with Arizona law, as well as a permanent injunction barring the defendants from renting to Arizona consumers until their units meet legal requirements. The complaint also seeks restitution and civil penalties for the harm caused to residents.
If you believe you have been the victim of consumer fraud, you can file a consumer complaint by visiting the Attorney General's website (https://us.list-manage.com/PGxrj06KbB8?e=b0dbe1a1e5&c2id=09345700d02fac819a23d47fdcb56250). If you need a complaint form sent to you, contact the Attorney General's Office in Phoenix at (602) 542-5763, in Tucson at (520) 628-6648, or outside the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas at (800) 352-8431.
Attachments
2026-08-07 APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2026-08/2026-08-07%20APPLICATION%20FOR%20TEMPORARY%20RESTRAINING%20ORDER%20AND%20PRELIMINARY%20INJUNCTION.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general-mayes-sues-out-state-landlords-leaving-tucson-tenants-without-ac
