Christopher H. Casey – State Attorneys General Blog

April 14, 2025April 14, 2025 by Christopher H. Casey

Group of Attorneys General Sue Trump Administration to Allow Access to Funds to Address Long-Term Effects of Covid-19 on K-12 Children

On April 10, a group of Democratic state attorneys general, along with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, sued the Trump Administration over access to previously-approved funding to address the long -term effects of Covid-19 on elementary and high school students. On March 28, the Department of Education sent a letter to the plaintiff states notifying them that they could no longer access the funds, totaling $1.1 billion, under programs enacted as part of the Biden Administration’s Covid relief plan.

The letter rescinding the funding had stated that “the COVID pandemic [has already] ended,” and therefore extending deadlines for COVID-related grants “is not consistent with the Department’s priorities and thus not a worthwhile exercise of its discretion.” But the Complaint alleges that many of the areas of focus for the funding “are not tied to the duration of the public health emergency, including evidence-based interventions (such as summer learning, extended day programs, and afterschool initiatives) intended to mitigate the long-term effects of learning disruptions caused by the pandemic; addressing academic, social, emotional, and mental health needs, especially for marginalized groups like low-income students; and providing educational technology to enhance learning environments.”

The Department of Education had previously said that the states could access the funds through March 2026. The Complaint seeks an order vacating and setting aside the Department of Education’s rescission letter, and an injunction precluding the Department from taking any action to prevent the states from accessing the funds through March 2026.

The plaintiffs include New York, Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania (through Governor Shapiro, acting in his official capacity), and the District of Columbia.

March 7, 2025March 7, 2025 by Christopher H. Casey

District Court Orders Trump Administration to Release Federal Funding to States and Enjoins Implementation of Federal Funding Freeze

On March 6, 2025, Judge John J. McConnell of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted the Motion for Preliminary Injunction sought by 22 state attorneys general and the Attorney General for the District of Columbia challenging the Trump Administration’s “pause” or “freeze” of grant funding payments. The Court, ordered the Trump Administration to “release and transmit any disbursements to the States on awarded grants, executed contracts or other executed financial obligations that were paused on the grounds of the OMB Directive” and other related Executive Orders. In his 45-page order, Judge McConnell held that the Trump Administration’s freeze on federal funding “fundamentally undermines” the separation of powers.

In support of their motion, the state attorneys general presented evidence of the widespread effects of the federal funding freeze, which they said has impacted “nearly all aspects of the States’ governmental operations” and has inhibited the States’ “ability to administer vital services to their residents.” These harms, they argued, are a direct result of the efforts taken by the Trump Administration to withhold federal funds and implement the federal funding freeze.

February 11, 2025February 11, 2025 by Daniel R. Walworth

Court Rules Trump Administration Violated TRO Enjoining Administration’s Funding Freeze

On February 10, 2025, Judge John McConnell of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted the motion of the state attorneys general for enforcement of the January 31, 2025, temporary restraining order (TRO) relating to the Trump Administration’s proposed “pause” or “freeze” of federal grant funding payments.

The January 31, 2025, TRO prohibits all pauses or freezes on federal funding based on the OMB Directive. Judge McConnell found the Trump administration in violation of this TRO. His February 10, 2025, order provides that “[t]he States have presented evidence in th[eir] motion that the Defendants in some cases have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds.” Such pauses in funding violate the express terms of the TRO, the Court said.

The February 10, 2025, order requires the Trump administration, during the pendency of the TRO, to restore frozen funding, to end any federal funding pause, to take every step necessary to effectuate and comply with the TRO, to immediately restore withheld federal funds, and to resume the funding of institutes and agencies, such as the National Institute for Health.

February 6, 2025February 6, 2025 by Christopher H. Casey

State Attorneys General Diverge on Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

On January 23, 2025, Judge John C. Coughenour of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a TRO in one of two cases (in Massachusetts and Washington federal courts) brought by attorneys general of 22 states and the District of Columbia to enjoin implementation of a Trump Administration Executive Order concerning “automatic” birthright citizenship. The Order, set to take effect on February 19, 2025, absent an injunction, directed federal agencies not to issue citizenship documents to those born in the United States to a mother who is unlawfully present or lawfully present on a temporary basis and a father who is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In advance of preliminary injunction hearings in the Western District of Washington scheduled for February 6, 2025, a second group of 18 state attorneys general have filed an amici curiae brief in that district, opposing the preliminary injunction being sought by the other AGs. The amici AGs opposing the injunction includes the Attorneys General of Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming.

On February 5, 2025, Judge Deborah Boardman of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted a nationwide injunction halting the Executive Order in a separate suit brought by immigration advocacy groups. The preliminary injunction hearings in the two cases brought by the state AGs are still scheduled to go forward.

February 3, 2025February 3, 2025 by Daniel R. Walworth

Court Grants State Attorneys General TRO Enjoining Administration’s Funding “Freeze”

On January 31, 2025, Judge John McConnell of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted the TRO sought by 22 state attorneys general and the Attorney General for the District of Columbia challenging the Trump Administration’s “pause” or “freeze” of grant funding payments.

The Court found that the attorneys general had a likelihood of success on the merits on their claims that the pause violated the Administrative Procedure Act, is arbitrary and capricious; violates separation of powers; and violates the Constitution’s Spending, Presentment, and Take Care clauses. The Court reached its determination “[b]ecause of the breadth and ambiguity of the ‘pause,’” and therefore anchored its reasoning “based on the effect it will have on many—but perhaps not all—grants and programs it is intended to cover.”

In rejecting the Administration’s argument that the Rescission Memo from OMB mooted the case, the Court relied upon a tweet by the White House Press Secretary –and an email from the EPA sent after the Rescission Memo stating that money would not be disbursed while the EPA determined how to implement the funding “freeze” memo from OMB. The Court found that “the OMB Directive that the States challenge here [is] still in full force and effect.”

To address the Administration’s statements that the “freeze” or “pause” would continue notwithstanding the Rescission Memo, the scope of the TRO prohibits the Trump Administration Defendants from “reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB Directive under any other name or title or through any other Defendants (or agency supervised, administered, or controlled by any Defendant), such as the continued implementation identified by the White House Press Secretary’s statement of January 29, 2025.”

January 30, 2025February 11, 2025 by Daniel R. Walworth

Federal Judge in State AG Suit Signals Intention to Enjoin Funding Freeze, Despite Second OMB Memo Rescinding Prior Memo Directing Freeze

In the suit brought in federal district court in Rhode Island by a group of 23 state attorneys general to challenge the Trump Administration’s cessation of federal funding payments, District Court Judge John McConnell Jr. indicated on Wednesday, January 29, 2025, the Court’s intention to grant the TRO sought by the State AGs. An injunction in the State AGs’ suit would follow an injunction granted by a D.C. District Court on Tuesday, January 28, 2025, in a suit challenging the funding freeze brought by a group of not-for-profit entities.

Despite a two-sentence memo issued by the White House Office of Management and Budget stating that the prior funding freeze memo was “rescinded,” the Court reportedly described the OMB’s memoranda as “hugely ambiguous,” and relied upon statements of White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, in indicating the Court’s intention to grant the injunction.

Press Secretary Leavitt tweeted that the memo rescinding the funding freeze memo did not, in fact, lift the freeze, but only rescinded “the OMB memo.” Leavitt made clear on behalf of the administration that the freeze remained in effect, but only “the memo” was rescinded to “end any confusion created by” the D.C. District Court’s injunction.

January 29, 2025January 30, 2025 by Christopher H. Casey

State Attorneys General File Suit Challenging President Trump’s Freeze on Federal Grants and Loans; D.C. District Court Judge Temporarily Blocks Freeze

On January 28, 2025, attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island seeking a temporary restraining order against the Trump Administration’s proposed spending freeze on federal grants and loans. The state attorneys general include New York, California, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. The complaint alleges that the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed pause on federal spending violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious, the Separation of Powers doctrine because it usurps the legislative function, and the Spending, Presentment, Appropriations, and Take Care Clauses of the United States Constitution.

Also on January 28, 2025, several nonprofit organizations, led by the National Council of Nonprofits, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a temporary restraining order “to maintain the status quo until the Court has an opportunity to more fully consider the illegality of OMB’s actions.” The plaintiffs allege that the OMB’s proposed spending freeze violates the Administrative Procedure, is contrary to the First Amendment, and exceeds OMB’s statutory authority. Judge Loren AliKhan—just one day after OMB issued the temporary pause, and shortly before it was to take effect—temporarily blocked the proposed pause, preventing the Trump Administration from implementing the spending freeze. Judge AliKhan’s temporary order will remain in effect until February 3, 2025, at 5:00 pm.

November 8, 2024November 12, 2024 by Christopher H. Casey

Kroger Agrees to Pay $1.37 Billion to State Attorneys General in Opioid Settlement

On Monday, November 4, supermarket chain Kroger finalized a settlement agreement with dozens of state attorneys general requiring the company to pay a total of $1.37 billion for its alleged role in failing to appropriately monitor the dispensing of opioids at its pharmacies. The settlement resolves the states’ allegations that Kroger ignored red flags showing suspicious narcotics prescriptions that fueled the opioid epidemic. The settlement involves 33 states and the District of Columbia, and multiple subdivisions and tribal nations.

The states that will receive the largest payments are Ohio, with 11.2% of the settlement amount; California, with 10.1%; and Texas, with 6.4%. The funds will go towards opioid prevention, treatment and recovery programs. The settlement also includes injunctive relief requiring Kroger’s pharmacies to monitor, report, and share data about suspicious activity related to opioid prescriptions.

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein led the settlement negotiations along with California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the attorneys general of Colorado, Illinois, Oregon, Tennessee and Virginia. Kroger, based in Ohio, initially announced the settlement in September 2023. A spokesperson for the company stated that the finalization of the settlement resolves “nearly all the outstanding opioid-related claims” against Kroger.

August 30, 2024 by Christopher H. Casey

Eight State Attorneys General Join DOJ Antitrust Lawsuit Against RealPage

On August 23, 2024, the Attorneys General of North Carolina, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington, joined the DOJ Antitrust Division in suing RealPage, Inc., alleging an unlawful scheme to decrease competition among landlords in apartment pricing and to monopolize the market for commercial revenue management software that landlords use to price apartments.

The complaint alleges that landlords share with RealPage their nonpublic, competitively sensitive data, which RealPage then uses to generate rental pricing recommendations, suppressing competition among landlords to the detriment of renters throughout the country. The state attorneys general assert their independent authority under Section 16 of the Clayton Act to bring actions to obtain injunctive relief for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

The attorneys general of the District of Columbia and Arizona previously sued RealPage for the same conduct, in November 2023 and February 2024, respectively. Those lawsuits—like a complaint filed by a proposed class of renters in October 2022—allege that RealPage’s conduct constitutes per se price-fixing. The allegations by the DOJ and the eight state attorneys general do not go that far, alleging instead information sharing and vertical agreements with landlords, claims that are typically decided under the rule of reason.

July 22, 2024 by Christopher H. Casey

Vermont Attorney General Sues Two of Largest PBMs for Driving Up Drug Prices

On July 17, 2024, the Vermont Attorney General, Charity R. Clark, filed a lawsuit in Vermont Superior Court against two of the largest pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) in the country, CVS Caremark and Express Scripts. The suit alleges that these two PBMs—which, according to the complaint, together control approximately 95% of the commercial PBM market in Vermont—have violated the Vermont Consumer Protection Act by engaging in deceptive and unfair practices that have had the effect of driving up pharmaceutical prices for consumers and squeezing independent pharmacies.

PBMs act as intermediaries in the health care system—they manage prescription drug benefits, including by negotiating discounts, rebates and fees with drug manufacturers, creating drug formularies (lists of medications that are covered by insurance) and policies, and reimbursing pharmacies for drugs covered by prescription-drug plans.

The Vermont AG’s complaint alleges that because they control which drugs are placed on the formularies, CVS Caremark and Express Scripts are able to extract payments from the manufacturers in return for favorable placement, which the PBMs retain as profits instead of passing along to payors and patients. It alleges that these PBMs drive up drug prices by giving preference on their formularies to drugs with high list prices—and correspondingly high manufacturer payments—over lower priced drugs. The complaint also alleges that CVS Caremark and Express Scripts pay lower reimbursement rates to pharmacies that are not affiliated with them, resulting in harm to independent pharmacies.

The allegations in the Vermont complaint echo the Federal Trade Commission’s interim conclusions of its ongoing study of the PBM industry.