Attorney General
Here's a look at documents from state attorneys general
Featured Stories
R.I. A.G. Neronha Concludes Investigation Into Smithfield Public Schools for 2025 Hazing Incident
PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island, April 18 -- Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha issued the following news release on April 17, 2026:
* * *
Attorney General Neronha concludes investigation into Smithfield Public Schools for 2025 hazing incident
Attorney General Peter F. Neronha today announced an agreement with Smithfield Public Schools (the District) which responds to a civil rights complaint concerning the school district's failure to respond appropriately to an incident involving the bullying of a Smithfield freshman which reportedly involved antisemitic epithets and conduct. The Resolution,
... Show Full Article
PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island, April 18 -- Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha issued the following news release on April 17, 2026:
* * *
Attorney General Neronha concludes investigation into Smithfield Public Schools for 2025 hazing incident
Attorney General Peter F. Neronha today announced an agreement with Smithfield Public Schools (the District) which responds to a civil rights complaint concerning the school district's failure to respond appropriately to an incident involving the bullying of a Smithfield freshman which reportedly involved antisemitic epithets and conduct. The Resolution,which was approved this evening by the Smithfield Public School Committee, outlines a series of preventative and corrective actions to which the District must adhere. Additionally, the Attorney General released a Letter of Resolution sent to the Smithfield Public School Committee Chair today, which also serves as the Office's report on its investigation.
The Office of the Attorney General conducted this investigation to determine whether the District complied with state law protecting civil rights, pursuant to its authority under the Office of the Civil Rights Advocate.
"Our children deserve to grow up without fear of violence and discrimination," said Attorney General Neronha. "School is where our kids spend their formative years; it should be a place of growth and exploration, not fear and intimidation. Our schools should be places where our children feel safe and supported, which was not the case for a Smithfield freshman on September 29, 2025. Through an extensive and thorough investigation by my Office, we identified several failures by the District in its handling of the incident itself, and in the months following. As such, and at the request of my Office, the District has agreed to a five-part resolution which we believe will foster a better, safer environment for students and prevent something like this from happening again. I want to thank the victim for his bravery in coming forward and telling his story, and the District for their commitment to do better when it comes to protecting our children."
The Office's investigation found that:
* The District struggled to properly investigate the alleged hazing and antisemitism incident when initially reported and did not take steps meaningfully calculated to ascertain and address potential violations of the student code of conduct;
* After the District belatedly determined an investigation was needed, that investigation had significant issues, including a lack of documentation, failure to use established procedures for documentation, failure to make clear factual findings as to the nature of the offenses and the involved parties' respective levels of culpability, and failure to communicate the disciplinary consequences to all parties;
* The District appears not to have abided by its own disciplinary policies and procedures, which require investigation of student discipline matters in accordance with applicable state laws and regulations;
* The District failed to fully address the victim's rights, including failing to implement a safety plan that would address the offending students' return to the team; and
* The District has not adequately considered whether its handling of this incident has created or contributed to a hostile environment on the basis of shared Jewish ancestry/ethnicity at the high school that may interfere with students' ability to participate in or benefit from its educational program.
Per the Resolution, the District agrees to address the aforementioned deficiencies by implementing the following improvement measures:
* Review its existing policies and procedures and make any amendments, or adopt any additional policies and procedures, necessary to effectively prohibit and address harassment, bullying, and misconduct as well as retaliation or threats of retaliation for reporting or participating in an investigation into such incidents;
* Provide administrators, teachers, coaches, and staff with sufficient training and support to permit them to effectively implement these policies and procedures;
* Provide all students age-appropriate programming sufficient to develop the skills, knowledge, and strategies needed to prevent antisemitic discrimination that specifically addresses harassment based on shared Jewish ancestry/ethnicity and that reinforces the school district's commitment to having a school environment free from such discrimination;
* Administer a voluntary climate survey to Smithfield High School students and their parents/guardians that includes gathering information to assess whether the school district's handling of this incident has created or contributed to a hostile environment based on Jewish ancestry/ethnicity that may interfere with students' ability to participate in or benefit from its educational program so that the District can better identify the scope and type of interventions to implement to eliminate any hostile environment, prevent it from recurring, and, as appropriate, remedy its effects; and
* Develop a written protocol that incorporates best practices for ensuring victims' rights and providing support to victims after the District receives notice of alleged discrimination or bullying and during the investigative process to ensure safe and equal access to educational programs and activities.
To learn more about the Office's Civil & Community Rights Unit, including how to file a complaint, please visit our website (https://www.riag.ri.gov/about-our-office/divisions-and-units/civil-division/public-protection/civil-community-rights-0).
* * *
Original text here: https://riag.ri.gov/press-releases/attorney-general-neronha-concludes-investigation-smithfield-public-schools-2025
Disclosure of the Name of the Police Officer Involved in the April 6, 2026 Shooting Incident in Northfield, New Hampshire
CONCORD, New Hampshire, April 18 -- New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella issued the following news release on April 17, 2026:
* * *
Disclosure of the Name of the Police Officer Involved in the April 6, 2026 Shooting Incident in Northfield, New Hampshire
Attorney General John M. Formella announces the identity of the police officer who discharged his firearm during a shooting incident on the evening of April 6, 2026 in Northfield, New Hampshire that resulted in the shooting death of Megan Whiting (age 27).
The officer who discharged his weapon is Officer Nikolas Ballentine of the Northfield
... Show Full Article
CONCORD, New Hampshire, April 18 -- New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella issued the following news release on April 17, 2026:
* * *
Disclosure of the Name of the Police Officer Involved in the April 6, 2026 Shooting Incident in Northfield, New Hampshire
Attorney General John M. Formella announces the identity of the police officer who discharged his firearm during a shooting incident on the evening of April 6, 2026 in Northfield, New Hampshire that resulted in the shooting death of Megan Whiting (age 27).
The officer who discharged his weapon is Officer Nikolas Ballentine of the NorthfieldPolice Department. Officer Ballentine has approximately two years of law enforcement experience.
The exact circumstances surrounding the shooting incident remain under investigation.
It is anticipated that a report regarding the incident and whether Officer Ballentine's use of deadly force was justified will be released once the investigation is complete.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.doj.nh.gov/news-and-media/disclosure-name-police-officer-involved-april-6-2026-shooting-incident-northfield
Del. Chief Deputy A.G. Logan Issues Opinion on FOIA Petition Regarding Delaware State Police
DOVER, Delaware, April 18 -- Delaware Chief Deputy Attorney General Daniel Logan issued the following opinion (No. 26-IB16) on April 16, 2026:
* * *
To: Meryem Dede, Esq., mdede@tideshiftjustice.org
RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Delaware State Police, Department of Safety and Homeland Security
Dear Ms. Dede:
We write in response to your correspondence alleging that the Delaware State Police, Department of Safety and Homeland Security ("DSP") violated Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. Sec.Sec. 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). We treat your correspondence as a Petition for a determination
... Show Full Article
DOVER, Delaware, April 18 -- Delaware Chief Deputy Attorney General Daniel Logan issued the following opinion (No. 26-IB16) on April 16, 2026:
* * *
To: Meryem Dede, Esq., mdede@tideshiftjustice.org
RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Delaware State Police, Department of Safety and Homeland Security
Dear Ms. Dede:
We write in response to your correspondence alleging that the Delaware State Police, Department of Safety and Homeland Security ("DSP") violated Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. Sec.Sec. 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). We treat your correspondence as a Petition for a determinationpursuant 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 DSP violated FOIA by failing to demonstrate through sworn statements that the identified portions of your request for records were appropriately denied.
BACKGROUND
On October 22, 2025, you filed three FOIA requests with the DSP, as follows:
1. How many records the State Police have expunged through either the mandatory or automatic expungement process (no need to differentiate) between:
1. November 1, 2024 and December 31, 2024; and
2. January 1, 2025 and October 1, 2025.
2. How many records the State Police have expunged through any expungement process (no need to differentiate) between:
1. November 1, 2024 and December 31, 2024; and
2. January 1, 2025 and October 1, 2025.
3. I'd like to know how much the State Bureau of Identification has collected in fees during the following time frames for mandatory expungements under 11 C. Sec. 4373(e) ("The State Bureau of Identification may promulgate reasonable regulations and a reasonable fee schedule to accomplish the purposes of this section."):
1. November 1, 2024 and December 31, 2024; and
2. January 1, 2025 and October 1, 2025.[1]
On March 11, 2026, the DSP responded by providing a link to the Delaware State Police 2024 Annual Report and reproducing a portion of that report which addressed expungements and the Clean Slate section. The DSP stated it would update its response to you with the 2025 statistics once the data is prepared for the 2025 report or the General Assembly. The DSP asserted that it is not required to create records that do not exist, but nonetheless, it preliminarily compiled the 2025 monthly and yearly totals for the mandatory expungement fee collection. This Petition followed.
In the Petition, you contend that the DSP left two portions of your request unanswered, specifically, "how many records the State Police have expunged through either the mandatory or automatic expungement process (no need to differentiate) between: . . . (2) January 1, 2025 and October 1, 2025" and "how many records the State Police have expunged through any expungement process (no need to differentiate) between: . . . (2) January 1, 2025 and October 1, 2025."[2] While awaiting the DSP's response, you assert that you requested data from the Office of the Governor, which you received in January 2026. You contend that because of the data you received from the Office of the Governor, the DSP appears to have the "exact data on the number of expungements they issued not just for January 1, 2025 through October 1, 2025," but "for the entire calendar year of 2025" and "these expungements delineated by type, whereas my request did not ask [the DSP] to differentiate between automatic expungements and mandatory expungements, which [the DSP] previously claimed they are unable to do."[3] In light of this discrepancy, you requested our Office review the DSP's response "and determine whether the agency conducted an adequate search and complied with its obligations under the state's FOIA statute."[4]
On March 27, 2026, the DSP, through its legal counsel, replied to the Petition ("Response"). The DSP points out that it provided you with the 2024 data and stated it would supplement its response once the 2025 data become available. The DSP argues that just because you were able to obtain responsive information which is "perhaps preliminary in nature" from another public source does not make the DSP's response invalid or inappropriate.[5] The DSP was planning on supplementing its response once the data had been finalized and set forth in a public record, as it did previously with the 2024 data. The DSP further notes that it is "not surprising that executive agencies report various information and data to the Office of the Governor" and "FOIA does not prevent state agencies, or [the Governor's Office], from releasing preliminary data or answering inquiries posed by constituents and interested stakeholders (assuming no other legal bar)."[6]
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."[7] FOIA requires that citizens be provided reasonable access to and reasonable facilities for the copying of public records.[8] The public body has the burden of proof to justify its denial of access to records.[9] In certain circumstances, a sworn affidavit may be required to meet that burden.[10]
The Judicial Watch, Inc. v. University of Delaware case provides that Section 10005(c) "requires a public body to establish facts on the record that justify its denial of a FOIA request."[11] "[U]nless it is clear on the face of the request that the demanded records are not subject to FOIA, to meet the burden of proof under Section 10005(c), a public body must state, under oath, the efforts taken to determine whether there are responsive records and the results of those efforts."[12] Generalized assertions in the affidavit will not meet the burden.[13] For example, the Superior Court of Delaware determined that an affidavit outlining that legal counsel inquired about several issues, without indicating who was consulted, when the inquiries were made, and what, if any documents, were reviewed, was too generalized to meet this standard.
Here, you challenge the DSP's assertion that it currently does not have the requested information responsive to those two portions of the request and ask our Office to determine whether the DSP performed an adequate search for this information. While a public body is not required to create a new document in response to a FOIA request, producing "easily disclosable information stored in a computer system does not require the creation of a new record."[14] In this case, you seek specific sets of statistics. Neither party alleges that such information is not subject to FOIA on its face. Rather, the DSP intends to produce such records but argues that despite what you received from the Governor's Office, the DSP currently does not have "finalized" responsive records to produce. Because the DSP has not produced any sworn statements to support its Response, including statements demonstrating it conducted an adequate search for the requested records, we must find the DSP in violation of FOIA. We recommend that the DSP, in compliance with the timeframes set forth in Section 10003, review its records and supplement its response with any additional records, responses, or information, if appropriate under FOIA.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the DSP violated FOIA by failing to demonstrate through sworn statements that the identified portions of your request for records were appropriately denied.
Very truly yours,
Daniel Logan, Chief Deputy Attorney General
cc: Joseph Handlon Deputy Attorney General
Dorey Cole, Deputy Attorney General
* * *
Footnotes:
[1] Petition.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Response.
[6] Id. (emphasis in original).
[7] Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996, 1004 (Del. 2021).
[8] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10003(a).
[9] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10005(c).
[10] Judicial Watch, Inc., 267 A.3d at 1008-1012.
[11] Id. at 1010.
[12] Id. at 1012.
[13] Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 2022 WL 2037923, at *3 (Del. Super. Jun. 7, 2022) ("The Court finds that the generalized statements in the Affidavit do not meet 'the burden to create a record from which the Superior Court can determine whether the University performed an adequate search for responsive documents.'").
[14] Vanella v. Duran, 2024 WL 5201305, at *9 (Del. Super. Dec. 23, 2024).
* * *
Original text here: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2026/04/16/26-ib16-04-16-2026-foia-opinion-letter-to-meryem-dede-esq-re-delaware-state-police/
N.J. Division of Gaming Enforcement Announces March 2026 Total Gaming Revenue Results
TRENTON, New Jersey, April 17 -- The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement issued the following news release on April 16, 2026:
* * *
New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement Announces March 2026 Total Gaming Revenue Results
ATLANTIC CITY -- Today the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement announced the March 2026 total gaming revenue results.
Casino Win:
Casino Win for the nine casino hotels was $236.7 million for March 2026, reflecting an increase of 2.5% when compared to $230.9 million reported for March 2025. Year-to-date Casino Win was $652.9 million through March 2026, reflecting
... Show Full Article
TRENTON, New Jersey, April 17 -- The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement issued the following news release on April 16, 2026:
* * *
New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement Announces March 2026 Total Gaming Revenue Results
ATLANTIC CITY -- Today the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement announced the March 2026 total gaming revenue results.
Casino Win:
Casino Win for the nine casino hotels was $236.7 million for March 2026, reflecting an increase of 2.5% when compared to $230.9 million reported for March 2025. Year-to-date Casino Win was $652.9 million through March 2026, reflectingan increase of 1.3% compared to the prior year-to-date period. The Monthly Gross Revenue Reports are posted online at https://www.njoag.gov/about/divisions-and-offices/division-of-gaming-enforcement-home/financial-and-statistical-information/monthly-gross-revenue-reports/
Internet Gaming Win:
Internet Gaming Win for the casinos and their partners was $272.1 million for March 2026, reflecting growth of 11.6% when compared to $243.9 million reported for March 2025. Year-to-date Internet Gaming Win was $782.8 million through March 2026, reflecting growth of 16.3% when compared to $673.3 million for the prior year-to-date period. The Monthly Internet Gaming Gross Revenue Reports are posted online at https://www.njoag.gov/about/divisions-and-offices/division-of-gaming-enforcement-home/financial-and-statistical-information/monthly-internet-gross-revenue-reports/
Sports Wagering Gross Revenue:
Sports Wagering Gross Revenue for the casinos, racetracks, and their partners was $87.6 million for March 2026, reflecting an increase of 22.8% when compared to $71.3 million reported for March 2025. Year-to-date Sports Wagering Gross Revenue was $268.4 million through March 2026, reflecting an increase of 0.5% when compared to $267.1 million reported for the prior year-to-date period. The Monthly Sports Wagering Tax Returns are posted online at https://www.njoag.gov/about/divisions-and-offices/division-of-gaming-enforcement-home/financial-and-statistical-information/monthly-sports-wagering-revenue-reports/
Total Gaming Revenue:
Total Gaming Revenue for casinos, racetracks, and their partners was $596.4 million for March 2026, reflecting 9.2% growth when compared to $546.1 million reported for March 2025. Year-to-date Total Gaming Revenue was $1.70 billion through March 2026, reflecting 7.5% growth when compared to $1.58 billion reported for the prior year-to-date period. Total Gross Revenue Taxes were $84.7 million for March 2026 and $246.1 million for year-to-date through March 2026.
Click here (https://www.nj.gov/oag/ge/docs/Financials/PressRelease2026/March2026.pdf) for the DGE press release for additional information.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.njoag.gov/new-jersey-division-of-gaming-enforcement-announces-march-2026-total-gaming-revenue-results/
N.J. A.G. Davenport, Bipartisan Coalition Support Federal Rule to Increase PBM Transparency in Drug Pricing
TRENTON, New Jersey, April 17 -- New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport issued the following news release on April 16, 2026:
* * *
AG Davenport, Bipartisan Coalition Support Federal Rule to Increase PBM Transparency in Drug Pricing
Pharmacy Benefit Managers Affect Affordability of Prescription Drugs, Hurting Patients and Taxpayers
*
Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and a bipartisan coalition of 44 other attorneys general filed a comment letter in support of a proposed U.S. Department of Labor rule that would require transparency from pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that service
... Show Full Article
TRENTON, New Jersey, April 17 -- New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport issued the following news release on April 16, 2026:
* * *
AG Davenport, Bipartisan Coalition Support Federal Rule to Increase PBM Transparency in Drug Pricing
Pharmacy Benefit Managers Affect Affordability of Prescription Drugs, Hurting Patients and Taxpayers
*
Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and a bipartisan coalition of 44 other attorneys general filed a comment letter in support of a proposed U.S. Department of Labor rule that would require transparency from pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that serviceemployer-funded health plans.
PBMs are third-party administrators of prescription drug programs for health insurers and health plans. Governor Mikie Sherrill called for more oversight into these middlemen in her budget address in March, noting that New Jersey's Medicaid program would save $20 million annually if PBMs were not allowed to inflate prices.
"We all feel the financial pain of rising drug prices, but it doesn't have to be this way," said Attorney General Davenport. "We're standing together with a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general in urging the federal government to increase oversight over PBMs. Our office is committed to ensuring that PBMs are following the law--and to hold them accountable when they don't."
Created in the late 1960s to process prescription drug claims, PBMs now play a far broader and more powerful role in the health care system by managing prescription drug benefits for health insurers.
This includes, among other things, negotiating rebates and reimbursements with drug manufacturers and determining which drugs are covered and at what cost.
Approximately 136 million Americans receive health coverage through an employer--either their own job or a family member's--and the proposed rule responds to concerns that employers often lack visibility into how PBMs are making money or why drug costs change. It would require PBMs to disclose twice a year how they generate revenue and would give employers the right to audit them.
PBMs have also long sought to avoid state regulation by claiming federal preemption under ERISA. The attorneys general urge the Department of Labor to clarify that the proposed rule does not preempt state PBM transparency laws. PBMs have long sought to avoid state regulation by claiming federal preemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Further, in the comment letter, the attorneys general ask the Department of Labor to commit to collaborating with state regulators to achieve transparency. According to the coalition, the final rule should mention that nothing in the rule is intended to prevent the Department of Labor from referring matters to state attorneys general, requesting their investigative or enforcement assistance, or coordinating with them when the department discovers violations of state law.
Today, the top three PBMs manage approximately 80% of prescription drug claims. Due to the power imbalance held by PBMs and the negative effects of such power on drug pricing, all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have enacted laws to rein them in. In recent years, New Jersey has enacted several laws that apply to PBMs, including one that requires PBMs to report pricing information to the Division of Consumer Affairs and provides for civil penalties if they fail to report.
In submitting today's comment letter, Attorney General Davenport joins the attorneys general of Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
View Comment Letter (https://www.njoag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/2026-0415_Ltr-to-Dept-of-Labor-re-Pharm-Benefits-Mgr-FINAL.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.njoag.gov/ag-davenport-bipartisan-coalition-support-federal-rule-to-increase-pbm-transparency-in-drug-pricing/
Md. A.G. Brown Defends Temporary Protected Status for Immigrants From Somalia
BALTIMORE, Maryland, April 17 -- Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown issued the following news release on April 16, 2026:
* * *
Attorney General Brown Defends Temporary Protected Status for Immigrants from Somalia
Attorney General Anthony G. Brown today joined a coalition of 16 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief opposing the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) unlawful and baseless attempt to strip Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from Somali immigrants.
The TPS program is a crucial humanitarian lifeline that Congress established to protect immigrants from being returned
... Show Full Article
BALTIMORE, Maryland, April 17 -- Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown issued the following news release on April 16, 2026:
* * *
Attorney General Brown Defends Temporary Protected Status for Immigrants from Somalia
Attorney General Anthony G. Brown today joined a coalition of 16 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief opposing the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) unlawful and baseless attempt to strip Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from Somali immigrants.
The TPS program is a crucial humanitarian lifeline that Congress established to protect immigrants from being returnedto countries that have been deemed unsafe, allowing them to work and build a life in the United States. Today's amicus brief, filed in African Communities Together v. Noem, highlights the humanitarian and economic harm that would result from ending TPS protections for Somali immigrants and urges the court to postpone the revocation.
"Somali TPS recipients in Maryland are valued members of our communities who have built their lives here, many of whom work in essential jobs such as healthcare." said Attorney General Brown. "We won't stand by while this Administration tears families apart and sends our neighbors back to one of the most dangerous countries on earth."
In November 2025, President Trump posted on social media that he was "hereby terminating, effective immediately, the Temporary Protected Status (TPS Program) for Somalis in Minnesota..." Since then, President Trump has repeatedly launched racist attacks against Somali immigrants, calling them "garbage" and "stupid people" with "low IQs" "from a crooked country, disgusting country, one of the worst countries in the world." In January 2026, Kristi Noem, then the Secretary of Homeland Security, announced she was terminating Somalia's TPS designation in part because "permitting Somali nationals to remain temporarily in the United States would be contrary to the national interest of the United States." As of January 2026, there are 2,471 Somali nationals in the United States under TPS with another 1,383 with pending applications.
Somalia was first designated for TPS in 1991 by Acting Attorney General William Barr due to "extraordinary and temporary conditions." Civil war has raged in Somalia for the ensuing 35 years, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, children being forced into combat, extrajudicial killings, sexual and gender-based violence, and other human rights abuses. Given the ongoing violence and suffering, Somalia's TPS designation has continually been in place since 1991.
The attorneys general warn that Somali TPS holders across their states, and their states themselves, will be profoundly harmed if the termination of their TPS status is not postponed. In purporting to terminate Somalia's TPS designation, Secretary Noem did not claim Somalia as a whole was safe but that "there are areas within Somalia where Somali nationals may live in safety." Secretary Noem's colleagues at the State Department do not share her opinion though. The State Department has issued its highest travel advisory for Somalia (Level 4: Do Not Travel), advising that Americans should not travel to Somalia "due to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, health, kidnapping, piracy, and lack of availability of routine consular services," noting "violent crime is common throughout Somalia, including kidnapping and murder," "illegal roadblocks are widespread," and "terrorists continue to plot kidnappings, bombings, and other attacks" and "may attack with little or no warning."
The coalition notes that revoking Somalia's TPS designation would present current TPS holders, particularly those with U.S. citizen children, with an agonizing choice:
* Return to Somalia alone, leaving their children behind;
* Take their U.S. citizen children with them to a dangerous country that the children do not know; or
* Stay in the United States without authorization and live with significant fear and uncertainty, knowing they cannot lawfully work and could be forcibly removed to Somalia at any time.
The attorneys general also argue in their brief that revoking Somalia's TPS designation would harm their economies and workforces. Somali TPS holders in Maryland are deeply embedded in the local workforce and community life, working in healthcare, hospitality, construction, transportation, and public service, among other critical industries.
The attorneys general are urging the court to postpone this attempted TPS revocation to prevent their states and residents of those states from suffering irreparable harm.
Joining Attorney General Brown in filing this brief are the attorneys general of California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.
* * *
Original text here: https://oag.maryland.gov/News/pages/Attorney-General-Brown-Defends-Temporary-Protected-Status-for-Immigrants-from-Somalia--.aspx
Attorney General James' Office of Special Investigation Opens Investigation into Civilian Death in Orange County
ALBANY, New York, April 17 -- New York Attorney General Letitia James issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General James' Office of Special Investigation Opens Investigation into Civilian Death in Orange County
*
April 17, 2026
NEW YORK - The New York Attorney General's Office of Special Investigation (OSI) has opened an investigation into the death of Marcus Burks, who died on January 1, 2026 following an encounter with members of the New York State Police (NYSP) and the City of Newburgh Police Department (CNPD) in Newburgh, Orange County. The OSI was previously conducting a
... Show Full Article
ALBANY, New York, April 17 -- New York Attorney General Letitia James issued the following news release:
* * *
Attorney General James' Office of Special Investigation Opens Investigation into Civilian Death in Orange County
*
April 17, 2026
NEW YORK - The New York Attorney General's Office of Special Investigation (OSI) has opened an investigation into the death of Marcus Burks, who died on January 1, 2026 following an encounter with members of the New York State Police (NYSP) and the City of Newburgh Police Department (CNPD) in Newburgh, Orange County. The OSI was previously conducting apreliminary assessment of the matter but opened an investigation following the receipt of new information.
At 10:32 p.m. on January 1, an NYSP trooper attempted to pull over Mr. Burks on State Route 17K in Newburgh for a nonworking headlight. Mr. Burks allegedly failed to stop and continued driving at a high rate of speed away from the trooper. The trooper followed Mr. Burks and shortly after came upon a crash scene involving Mr. Burks' car and another car.
Mr. Burks then got out of his car and the trooper and other responding officers attempted to restrain him. Officers used pepper spray and at least one Taser while attempting to restrain Mr. Burks. Mr. Burks became unresponsive and was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
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/2026/attorney-general-james-office-special-investigation-opens-investigation-13
