Christopher H. Casey – Page 2 – State Attorneys General Blog

February 11, 2025November 10, 2025 by Daniel R. Walworth

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

By Christopher H. Casey, Daniel R. Walworth and Sara Smith

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, 2025September 24, 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, 2025November 10, 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

By Christopher H. Casey, Daniel R. Walworth and Sara Smith

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.

July 18, 2024 by Christopher H. Casey

Coalition of 11 State Attorneys General Call for Increased Efforts to Rein In Private Equity in Healthcare

On June 5, 2024, the Attorneys General of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and Washington D.C. submitted a 29-page comment letter in response to the Request for Information on Consolidation in Healthcare Markets issued jointly by the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In the letter, the attorneys general expressed their concern about the adverse effects of consolidation in healthcare markets, particularly through transactions driven by private equity.

In particular, antitrust enforcers have focused on private equity “roll-ups”, consolidation of multiple smaller providers into a larger provider network. Over the last 14 years, healthcare consolidation propelled by private equity has steadily increased; between 2010 and 2020, the estimated private equity deal values in healthcare totaled about $750 billion. Many of those transactions involved the acquisition of physician practices, hospices, nursing homes, hospitals, and behavioral healthcare facilities. In their letter, the attorneys general stated, without empirical evidence, that this consolidation has led to increased prices, decreased access and quality of care, and harm to patients and communities.

The attorneys general urged the DOJ, FTC, and HHS to “explore all avenues to prevent conduct by private equity in healthcare that harms patients, healthcare workers, and taxpayers who often end up footing the bill.” They made several concrete recommendations, including (1) increased transparency of ownership and payments; (2) a ban on anticompetitive contracting in federal programs; and (3) joint enforcement against anticompetitive conduct and mergers. The letter shows that a significant number of states are ready to partner with federal authorities in reining in private equity’s influence in health care.

July 10, 2024July 10, 2024 by Karen Lehmann Alexander

Coalition of State Attorneys General Supports Registry of Consumer Protection Law Violations

On June 11, 2024, the attorneys general of New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Vermont wrote a letter to Rohit Chopra, the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), in support of the CFPB’s Nonbank Registration of Orders Rule. The Rule, which becomes effective September 16, 2024, will require nonbank entities that offer consumer financial products and services to register with the CFPB all final orders issued by courts or by federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies finding violations of consumer protection laws. The CFPB will use this information to compile a searchable online registry available to the public. Failure to register will be a violation of federal consumer financial law subject to CFPB enforcement, and remedies include potential civil monetary penaltie

In their letter, the state attorneys general stated that they support the Rule because the registry will enable them to spot emerging problems and engage in early prevention efforts. They also believe that the registry will be useful in prioritizing certain targets of investigations over others, targeting state-level or regional actors that might not draw attention from federal agencies, and negotiating resolutions with entities engaged in similar conduct.

Nonbank entities that offer consumer financial products and services should ensure that they are in compliance with the Rule following its effective date. Such entities should also be aware that the registry could result in increased enforcement from the CFPB and state attorneys general. As the state attorneys general point out in their letter, the registry may also be useful to such entities in identifying instances of specific conduct that courts or agencies have previously determined to be unlawful, deceptive, unfair, or abusive, and to shape their own marketing and compliance efforts accordingly.