Attorney General Todd Rokita co-leads half of U.S. states against new EPA rule that threatens to increase Hoosier utility bills
Attorney General Todd Rokita and 24 other attorneys general recently took the next step in preventing the Biden administration’s “Clean Power Plan 2.0” from imposing a stranglehold on the states and everyday Hoosiers as they cool, heat and light their homes. Attorney General Rokita’s office is leading a motion to stay this intrusive new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that places absurd anti-coal & gas mandates on power plants.
This new rule exceeds the EPA’s statutory authority — effectively requiring a shift away from coal by setting unrealistic standards for coal plants. The U.S. Supreme Court held in West Virginia v. EPA that Congress never gave the EPA such statutory power.
“By trying to foist this economy-crushing debacle on Indiana, the Washington elites are proving once again they have nothing but contempt for hardworking Hoosiers,” Attorney General Rokita said. “Rest assured that we’re working nonstop to protect our people from these ruthless schemes and hold these federal bureaucrats accountable to the rule of law.”
The unlawful new rule, which fits the agenda of left-wing climate extremists, threatens the reliability of the nation’s power grid and invites higher utility costs.
In their court motion, the attorneys general note that the new rule effectively forces some power plants out of business — ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 West Virginia v. EPA decision clarifying that Congress did not give the EPA power to “direct existing sources to effectively cease to exist.” Rather, Congress sought to respect the role of individual states in balancing regional economic interests with environmental priorities such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The rule abandons cooperative federalism. Although the federal government is legally required to give states discretion in implementing standards, the EPA’s new standards are so stringent that they erase state discretion.
Attorney General Rokita is co-leading the 25-state effort with West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. After filing the initial lawsuit last week, the attorneys general are now seeking a stay of the new rule pending the outcome of the litigation.
The motion to stay is attached.
Attorney General Todd Rokita statement to US Supreme Court: immunize former President Trump from elitist partisan prosecution
As the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments April 25 in the matter, Attorney General Todd Rokita strongly advocated that presidential immunity be given to former President Donald Trump to protect him from partisan political prosecutions pertaining to conduct involving official actions he took as president.
“As president, Donald Trump built a strong economy, secured the border and brought America back to greatness,” Attorney General Rokita said. “Ever since he left office, his political enemies have schemed ways to keep him from ever becoming president again. Our mission is to make sure the American people, rather than these corrupt elitists, keep the power to choose the American president.”
A Special Counsel appointed by US Attorney General Merrick Garland waited until nearly three years after the events of January 6, 2021 — the day that protesters stormed the US Capitol — to indict President Trump for his actions on that day.
Now, though, the Special Counsel is rushing to bring the case to trial before the 2024 election.
In an 18-state amicus brief led by Alabama and including Indiana, the attorneys general have asked the Supreme Court to prevent partisan-driven criminal prosecutions for official acts to intrude on the constitutional structure and function of the presidency.
Besides the D.C.-based case leveled against him over the January 6 protest, former President Trump also has faced political prosecutions in other cases originating in Georgia, Florida, and New York.
“The Left has made an art form out of weaponizing our judicial institutions against their political adversaries,” Attorney General Rokita said. “No matter which side does it, that kind of manipulation is wrong and dangerous to our republic. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to help right the ship.”
Such a course correction involves affirming that presidents and former presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct involving their official acts during their tenures in office. At every stage, President Trump has argued that he is entitled to presidential immunity for any actions that he took on January 6, 2021.
Earlier this year, Attorney General Rokita co-led another effort to protect President Trump’s ability to become president again by defending his right to appear on the Colorado ballot over a state court’s objection. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled state courts could not keep President Trump off state ballots — embracing the central argument put forward in two amicus briefs led by Indiana and West Virginia. One of those briefs was signed by 27 states; the other by 25.
Attorney General Todd Rokita defends states’ pro-life laws against federal interference
Attorney General Rokita leads 22-state amicus brief in US Supreme Court
Attorney General Todd Rokita is fighting efforts by the federal government to ride roughshod over state laws protecting human life and prohibiting abortions.
This week, Attorney General Rokita is supporting Idaho as it argues before the Supreme Court to protect its Defense of Life Act from preemption under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). In February, General Rokita led a 22-state amicus brief backing Idaho’s common-sense stance.
“Hoosiers know that when federal bureaucrats come after pro-life laws in Idaho or any other state, they will soon be coming after pro-life laws here in Indiana,” Attorney General Rokita said. “Under the Biden administration, the federal government remains determined to advance a pro-abortion culture of death — and it’s perfectly willing to usurp states’ rights in order to do so.”
Under the U.S. system of federalism, the power to regulate health, safety and medicine rests largely with the states. And in the Dobbs decision, the Supreme Court returned the issue of abortion to the states as well — overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
Federal attorneys, however, claim EMTALA allows emergency room physicians to ignore state medical regulations whenever they think it necessary to do so — including by performing abortions that are otherwise banned. In reality, however, EMTALA nowhere mentions the topic of abortion — and was never intended to be construed as the federal government now claims.
“The law is on our side,” Attorney General Rokita said. “Here in Indiana and across the nation, we can continue building a culture of life that respects the precious value not only of unborn children but also their moms and dads. And that’s what we’re going to do.”
Attorney General Todd Rokita sues Biden admin after radical Title IX rewrite promotes transgender rights over women athletes
Attorney General Todd Rokita is suing the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) over its frontal assault on the rights of girls and women via a radical rewrite of Title IX rule.
The new rule allows biological men to invade the private spaces of girls and women — such as bathrooms and locker rooms — as part of the Biden administration’s hellbent determination to advance the extreme ideology of the far-left transgender movement.
“We cannot effectively protect women’s rights — or even their physical safety — if we refuse to acknowledge there are in fact two sexes, male and female--and ONLY two sexes,” Attorney General Rokita said. “We cannot function effectively as a republic if we deny the basic facts of creation.”
The six-state lawsuit is being spearheaded alongside Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, and Virginia.
Enacted in 1972, Title IX helped equalize women’s access to educational facilities and programs by barring discrimination based on sex by federally funded schools. At the same time, because of the enduring physical differences between men and women, Title IX has always allowed the sex-segregated spaces — like bathrooms and locker rooms — that are ubiquitous across the nation.
The new DOE rule, in the guise of confronting “gender identity discrimination,” essentially abolishes sex-based distinctions in educational activities and programs. It forces Indiana and other states to accept radical gender ideology in our schools.
DOE has adopted the new rule in blatant defiance of Congress’s repeated refusal to extend Title IX’s protections to anything other than sex.
If DOE’s unauthorized rewrite of Title IX is allowed to stand, Indiana schools will have to allow males self-identifying as female — in every grade from preschool through college — to use girls’ and women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, play on girls’ and women’s sports teams, and access other female-only activities and spaces. Otherwise, schools risk losing billions in federal funding.
“Congress intended Title IX to prevent discrimination against girls and women,” Attorney General Rokita said. “The point was to encourage increased participation by girls and women in middle school, high school and college athletics. Now leftists are trying to twist Title IX to codify the very kind of anti-woman prejudice and discrimination this law was originally intended to remedy. With this lawsuit, we intend to stop this travesty.”
Attorney General Todd Rokita and State Rep. Mike Speedy announce advisory opinion clarifying that no laws require use of preferred pronouns
After state Rep. Mike Speedy raised the issue, Attorney General Todd Rokita recently produced an advisory opinion clarifying that neither state nor federal law requires a coworker to use the preferred pronouns and names of fellow employees.
An employer therefore is likely not liable in cases where staff members choose not to use new names and pronouns that are gender-nonconforming, the opinion states — provided that a reasonable person would not find the work environment to be objectively hostile.
“Hoosier businesses should not be burdened with policing employees’ words to make sure their attitudes align with the latest, wokest fads,” Rep. Speedy said. “They face enough needless government regulations without being on the hook for enforcing politically correct views of transgenderism.”
No federal court, Attorney General Rokita said, has found occasional use of non-preferred pronouns alone, even if intentional, to be actionable discrimination or create a hostile work environment.
“Most Hoosiers agree that we all should extend love and compassion toward individuals beset with gender dysphoria,” Attorney General Rokita said. “Treating these individuals with respect, however, does not require us to deny basic truths, as we see them.”
The times call for common sense, Attorney General Rokita added.
“We must oppose the radical agendas of extremists,” Attorney General Rokita said, “who would force us all to march in lockstep with the transanity that dominates so many facets of society, from Hollywood to corporate boardrooms.”
The advisory opinion notes that courts have left unsettled the question of how a pattern of pronoun usage in referring to another person might create a hostile working environment that potentially could give rise to an action under Title VII — which is part of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
Watch Attorney General Rokita's live press event announcing the opinion here.
Greater Lafayette organization settles with Attorney General’s Office for $105K
The Young Women’s Christian Association of Greater Lafayette has agreed to pay over $100,000 to the Indiana Attorney General’s Office to settle claims that it failed to properly document its use of grant money meant to provide services to victims of domestic violence.
The investigation into YWCA began four years ago when the Office of the Indiana Inspector General received a complaint alleging that the organization had “failed to comply with certain grant requirements.”
The complaint centered on 15 grants YWCA received from the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute between July 2013 and June 2017. The grants were funded on a reimbursement basis, with the majority of the grants requiring YWCA to provide a match or prove that the organization could also pull from revenue sources other than the grants.
The investigation found that YWCA came up short with its match of the grant. The investigation attributed the shortage to the organization’s failure to “document the match expenditure set forth in the approved budget, expense summary form and/or fiscal report.”
According to the investigation, the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute found that YWCA submitted incorrect information when documenting the specifics of the grants.
Office of the Indiana Inspector General subpoenaed multiple documents as part of its investigation, including information pertaining to YWCA’s payroll, bank and personal records.
After reviewing YWCA’s documents, payroll records, and credit card disbursements between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2017, in conjunction with the State Board of Accounts, it was determined that the reasons for YWCA’s financial discrepancies were caused by “internal control deficiencies” and not any criminal wrongdoing.
YWCA proceeded to reach a settlement agreement with the Attorney General’s Office in March after being charged by SBOA for a total of $89,834.01 for “failure to comply with certain grant requirements and additional audit costs incurred to investigate the matter in the amount of $30,399.00.”
The settlement also stipulated that YWCA’s employees responsible for administering grants must undergo training requirements through the U.S. Department of Justice.
|
