Tag: Jonathan Skrmetti

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Fight On New Death Penalty Law Expected to Continue Next Month

Credit: Jackson Baker

A Republican state senator from Memphis contends post-conviction challenges in capital murder cases should be handled by the state attorney general, not local district attorneys, despite a court ruling against the bill he passed.

“Because the attorney general handles all other aspects of the appeals process in capital cases, it is more efficient for collateral challenges to stay within the attorney general’s office, which already has extensive experience with the case,” state Sen. Brent Taylor said.

The first-term Memphis Republican sponsored the bill this year to put those responsibilities under the state attorney general, sparking a lawsuit by Memphis defense attorney Robert Hutton and Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy. They argued the law is unconstitutional because it removes the local district attorney from the equation and puts the state attorney general in charge of collateral challenges, which involve judicial re-examination of judgments or claims outside the direct review process. (Photo: Brent Taylor for Senate)

Shelby County Criminal Court Judge Paula Skahan ruled recently that the new law removing local district attorneys from death penalty post-conviction matters is unconstitutional. She also determined that the General Assembly failed to give proper public notice about the law but did not rule on a question of voting rights in the case.

The attorney general’s office is set to file a challenge by early August with the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The Tennessee Supreme Court could hear the case at some point.

“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and look forward to seeking clarity at the appellate level. Ensuring the adversarial system remains fully engaged over the life of a capital case is our obligation to the victims’ families because no family should be deprived of justice,” AG’s office spokesperson Elizabeth Lane Johnson said.

Hutton, who is representing Larry McKay in a death penalty case dating to 1982 reportedly filed a petition in March claiming new evidence could change the conviction. McKay and Michael Eugene Sample were convicted of two counts of felony murder for the shooting deaths of two Shelby County store clerks in a 1981 robbery.

Initially written to deal with a yearlong backlog of rape kits, Taylor’s legislation was amended to hand collateral review cases to the state attorney general, which Mulroy and Hutton claim removes the authority of locally-elected district attorneys and gives it to the state’s top attorney.

State Sen. Raumesh Akbari of Memphis, who leads the Senate Democratic Caucus, spoke against the measure on the Senate floor this year and continues to raise questions. She points out that Democrats told Republicans they were pushing an unconstitutional measure stripping people of their “right to local control” over death penalty cases.

“Now a state court is telling them the same,” Akbari said in a statement. “By eliminating the power of locally elected prosecutors to manage these cases, this law undermines the very essence of democracy and denies communities of their voice in matters of life and justice.”

Taylor, however, pointed out that “collateral challenges” usually take place well into the appeals process and said it is “cumbersome and disjointed” for a district attorney unfamiliar with a decades-old case to handle it.

“Additionally, by keeping the entire appeals process within the attorney general’s office, the law aims to improve transparency for victims’ families who have existing relationships” with lawyers in the attorney general’s office, Taylor said.

House Majority Leader William Lamberth, a former assistant district attorney in Sumner County, sponsored the bill originally, and Taylor signed as Senate sponsor. Lamberth could not be reached for comment.

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on Facebook and Twitter.

Categories
At Large Opinion

The Pander Posse

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (Photo: United States Supreme Court, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, Photographer Fred Schilling)

Right-wing radio host, election denier, and rabid Trumper Charlie Kirk said last week that MSNBC host Joy Reid, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, and former First Lady Michelle Obama “used affirmative action” because they “do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously, so they had to steal a white person’s slot.”

This racist and misogynistic statement was part of Kirk’s response to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina could no longer use affirmative action or any other race-based criteria in their admissions policies.

Did SCOTUS rule thusly because racism doesn’t exist any longer? (Maybe they don’t listen to Charlie Kirk.) Or because people of color are no longer discriminated against in the United States? Or because economic and educational opportunities are no longer intrinsically more difficult for minorities to attain? Or because white supremacist media stars with millions of listeners and viewers have ceased to exist?

Or did the Supreme Court rule against affirmative action because it has become a bought-and-sold verdict factory for the Republican Party’s troglodyte wing? I’m going with the latter, but that’s just me.

Not missing an opportunity to get some media attention, Tennessee’s noisy GOP attorney general, Jonathan Skrmetti, immediately jumped on the “reverse racism” bandwagon, along with GOP attorneys general from Kansas, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Montana, Kentucky, and West Virginia. This pander posse proudly announced that they’d sent a letter to each of the country’s Fortune 100 CEOs warning them not to try any of that nefarious DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) stuff in their states, by God.

Here’s the money shot from the letter: “The Supreme Court’s recent decision should place every employer and contractor on notice of the illegality of racial quotas and race-based preferences in employment and contracting practices. As Attorneys General, it is incumbent upon us to remind all entities operating within our respective jurisdictions of the binding nature of American anti-discrimination laws. If your company previously resorted to racial preferences or naked quotas to offset its bigotry, that discriminatory path is now definitively closed.”

In other words, “You bigoted companies better not try any of that ‘woke’ stuff in our state or we’ll see you in court!” Ron DeSantis would be proud. These 13 gas-bags are pursuing the same economically suicidal policies that caused Florida’s largest employer (The Walt Disney Company) to drop plans for a nearly $1 billion corporate campus in Orlando that would have brought 2,000 high-paying jobs to the state. DeSantis’ anti-woke crusade has also resulted in the cancellation of several major conventions and conferences, a “brain drain” of the state’s scientists and teachers, and a drop in tourism. ‘Woke’ isn’t going to die in DeSantis’ Florida,” wrote the editorial board of the Miami Herald. “It’s just taking its dollars elsewhere.”

Tennessee, it should be noted, is headquarters to two Fortune 100 companies: FedEx and HCA Healthcare. Both corporations have active DEI programs. Google “DEI FedEx,” if you doubt it. I guess this means General “Stonewall” Skrmetti is about to absolutely, positively come down on them hard, right?

Tennessee is also home to facilities for several other companies on the Fortune 100 list, including Nike, Sysco, State Farm, Lowe’s, The Home Depot, and, not least, Ford, which is in the process of constructing a $5.6 billion plant in Western Tennessee to build EV pickup trucks.

Just for fun, here’s Ford’s DEI statement from its corporate website: “For more than a century, Ford has been a pioneer in providing opportunity to people regardless of race, gender, ability, sexual orientation and background. We view this less with pride than the sober realization that we must go further to create a company where our differences are truly valued and every team member can bring their whole selves to work. Creating a culture of belonging isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s also the smart thing. Diversity breeds innovation and the companies that attract the most talented and diverse workforce will succeed in our rapidly changing world. We are family. We celebrate our differences. We all belong.”

What kind of snowflakey bilge is that? Built Ford Tough? Really? It’s clear these woke assholes need to straighten up or get the heck out of Tennessee. Your move, General.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Tennessee AG Asserts Right to Out-Of-State Abortion, Transgender Care Medical Records

Photo by Manny Becerra on Unsplash

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has joined Republican counterparts in 18 states in an effort to prevent the federal government from shielding the medical records of those who cross state lines to obtain legal abortion or gender-affirming care from investigations in their home state.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed a new privacy rule for certain medical records in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of abortion rights last year.

The rule would prohibit disclosure of medical records of individuals  who seek reproductive health care in a state in which the care is legal to officials or litigants in a home state in which it is not.

Under the proposed rule, the records would be shielded from law enforcement, court subpoenas and in civil lawsuits and family court proceedings.

“The proposed rule here continues the administration’s efforts to override state abortion law,” a June 16th letter from the attorneys general to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said.

The letter called the move to amend HIPAA — the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act — unconstitutional, a result of “political pressure from the White House” that would interfere with states’ abilities to protect the health and safety of their citizens and to pursue evidence of criminal activity.

The existence of the letter was first reported Friday by the Mississippi Free Press.

A spokesperson for Skrmetti on Monday reiterated the letter’s assertion that the federal agency was overstepping its authority in contemplating the new privacy rule.

“HHS does not have authority to change the law in contradiction of the statute passed by Congress,” Elizabeth Lane Johnson, a spokesperson for Skrmetti, said in a statement Monday.

The rule was first proposed in April after President Joe Biden issued an executive order directing HHS to “consider ways to strengthen the protection of sensitive information related to reproductive health care services and bolster patient-provider confidentiality.”

In unveiling the proposed rule — which is winding its way through the federal government’s rule-making process — HHS Office of Civil Rights Director Melanie Fontes Rainer said it came in response to the concerns of doctors and patients who feared adverse actions against those seeking care in another state that is illegal or restricted in their own.

“Today’s proposed rule is about safeguarding this trust in the patient-provider relationship, and ensuring that when you go to the doctor, your private medical records will not be disclosed and used against you for seeking lawful care,” Fontes Rainer said. “This is a real problem we are hearing and seeing, and we developed today’s proposed rule to help address this gap and provide clarity to our health care providers and patients.”

In their letter, attorneys general pushed back against the notion that they would seek to prosecute those seeking care outside their home state, calling such a claim “fear-mongering.”

Today’s proposed rule is about safeguarding this trust in the patient-provider relationship, and ensuring that when you go to the doctor, your private medical records will not be disclosed and used against you for seeking lawful care.

– Melanie Fontes Rainer, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

The letter notes that state laws criminalizing abortion consistently provide an exception for women seeking the procedure. While the HHS proposed rule does not explicitly mention transgender care, the attorneys general conclude in their letter that such care would fall under the umbrella of the plan.

Their letter outlined a hypothetical: Should officials believe an abortion provider in their home state provided an illegal abortion, falsified medical records then sent their patient for additional care out of state to cover it up, the HHS rule would bar their investigation, the letter said.

The letter also suggests the rule would bar a complete investigation into misconduct against a doctor licensed in multiple states and “could inhibit state’s investigation of child abuse and other serious crimes.”

While the letter does not specify the circumstances in which child abuse investigations would warrant out-of-state reproductive health care records, it criticizes the federal government’s “radical approach to transgender issues” and says the “administration may intend to use the proposed rule to obstruct state laws concerning experimental gender-transition procedures for minors.”

Download the letter here.

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on Facebook and Twitter.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

TN Attorney General Threatens Legal Action Against Fortune 100 Companies For “Racially Discriminatory” Employment Practices

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has signed a letter addressed to Fortune 100 CEOs that threatens legal action if they refuse to “refrain from discriminating on the basis of race, whether under the label of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ or otherwise. 

This letter was sent in  response to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, and was signed by 12 other attorneys general in Kansas, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Montana, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

“As the Supreme Court recently emphasized, both our Constitution and our civil rights laws guarantee every American the right to be free from racial discrimination,” said Skrmetti. “The Court’s reasoning means that companies, no matter their motivation, cannot treat people differently based on the color of their skin. Corporate America continues to have many avenues to help disadvantaged people and communities of all races without resorting to crude racial line-drawing.”

While the SCOTUS case Skrmetti cited struck down Harvard’s and the University of North Carolina’s affirmative action policies, the letter also noted that the Supreme Court “recognized that federal civil-rights statutes prohibiting private entities from engaging in race discrimination apply at least as broadly as the prohibition against race discrimination found in the Equal Protection Clause.”

The signees argued that “well-intentioned racial discrimination is just as illegal as invidious discrimination.” They also stated that the Supreme Court has “repeatedly and emphatically condemned racial quotas and preferences,” and cited the case of Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1 , 551 U.S. 701

“Sadly, racial discrimination in employment and contracting is all too common among Fortune 100 companies and other large businesses,” the letter said. “In an inversion of the odious discriminatory practices of the distant past, today’s major companies adopt explicitly race-based initiatives which are similarly illegal.”

The letter also stated that explicit racial quotas and preferences in hiring, recruiting, retention, promoting and advancement fall under “discriminatory practices.” It also called out companies such as Goldman Sachs, Apple, and Microsoft for adopting “race-based practices.”

“If your company previously resorted to racial preferences or naked quotas to offset its bigotry, that discriminatory path is now definitively closed. Your company must overcome its underlying bias and treat all employees, all applicants, and all contractors equally, without regard for race,” the letter said.

If companies do not cease to “continue treating people differently because of the color of their skin,” the attorneys general have promised that they will be held accountable.

Sen. London Lamar (D-Memphis) said that Skrmetti’s move is “an abuse of power” and that he is trying to “undermine economic opportunity for Black workers and business owners. There is an appalling lack of representation in corporate America. For instance, there are only eight Black CEOs leading Fortune 500 companies — and that’s a record high number,” said Lamar.

Lamar also said that if Skrmetti succeeds in “bullying companies into ending their programs,” the consequences will be “devastating.”

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

TN AG Opposes New Federal EtO Emissions Rules

Jonathan Skrmetti (Photo: tncourts.gov)

Tennessee’s attorney general pushed back against federal rules to reduce emissions of ethylene oxide (EtO), even though the gas is suspected of increasing cancer risks in South Memphis. 

EtO emissions from Sterilization Services of Tennessee in South Memphis could pose a cancer risk to those living in the neighborhood around it, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

The agency found the gas to be 60 times more toxic than previously believed. The gas is odorless and colorless, and is used at Sterilization Services to clean medial equipment. The EPA wasn’t aware emissions could raise cancer rates until 2016.

However, a recent study of the area around the facility found no cancer clusters. But the study and its results were questioned by some, including the Southern Environmental Law Center. 

Many in Memphis have clamored for action in the matter, including the Memphis City Council, which issued a resolution asking the company for help in January. The Shelby County Health Department has said there’s little it can do because the company is in compliance with all laws on EtO emissions.

The EPA issued new rules to rein in EtO emissions in April. Those rules are under review, pending a period of comment from the public.  

Tennessee AG Jonathan Skrmetti said Tuesday he’s against the new rules because they would harm the medical device industry. 

“These proposed regulations will significantly reduce the nation’s capacity to sterilize medical devices,” Skrmetti said in a statement. “If the [Biden administration] moves forward with this proposal, the shortage of available medical devices will hurt both patients and healthcare professionals.”

Skrmetti led a coalition of 20 other states’ attorneys general in responding to the EPA’s proposed rules. The letter claims EtO is used to sterilize about 20 billion medical devices a year and there are no substitutes. 

The new rules would “force the adoption of new, untested technologies to sterilize medical devices.” So, the EPA should do away with the new rules “to avoid disruption to healthcare across the country.”  

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Lawmaker Blasts State AG In Trans-Care Investigation

Jonathan Skrmetti (State of Tennessee)

A Tennessee Democratic leader said the state’s Attorney General has gone too far in an transgender-care probe and is, in general, widely deviating from his role in order to “promote his own political agenda.”

State House Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. John Ray Clemmons (D-Nashville) blasted Tennessee AG Jonathan Skrmetti in a Tuesday statement. Clemmons said the AG is seemingly “weaponizing and abusing” his powers in the trans-care case. The investigation, he said, comes in a series of politically partisan moves by Skrmetti, the former Memphis lawyer given the post last year.   

Skrmetti recently required Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) to hand over patients’ medical records and the employment records of some of the hospital’s health care providers. The AG said a  doctor there had “publicly described” how she manipulated medical billing codes to get trans care covered by insurance. The investigation is to determine whether the act occurred and if it broke state law. 

Skrmetti defended his action in the case. He said getting medical records is done in “dozens of billing fraud investigations” and his office investigates and litigates “numerous” medical-billing cases each year. 

The Nashville hospital starting giving him the records more than six months ago, Skrmetti said. His office has kept the investigation confidential for more than a year and he said he was “surprised by VUMC’s decision to notify patients.”

 “The Attorney General has no desire to turn a run-of-the-mill fraud investigation into a media circus,” reads a statement from Skrmetti’s office. 

The investigation is directed at the hospital, not the patients, he said, and the records will be held “in the strictest of confidence.” He also said “we understand patients are concerned that VUMC produced their records to this office.”

But Clemmons said the investigation is targeting trans care and by entering private medical records into the public record, it seems Skrmetti “intentionally created a significant threat to medical professionals and their patients’ privacy and safety.”

“Given the specialty areas General Skrmetti is targeting, his actions give the appearance that he is improperly weaponizing and abusing the broad CID powers of the Attorney General’s office to carry out an intimidation campaign against one of our state’s preeminent healthcare facilities and its providers and patients for the purpose of promoting his own radical political agenda or that of an extremist faction within his political party,” Clemmons said in a statement.

Clemmons said the conduct ”is only a continuation of the politically partisan manner in which Jonathan has conducted himself since day one.”

The Flyer has written about Skrmetti’s moves since he was sworn in in September here, here, here, here, and here. He was also loud and proud about Gas Stove-Gate.

On Tuesday, Clemmons listed ways he thought Skrmetti used his office politically. Here’s his list: 

• [Skrmetti] headlined an event hosted by IWN, an ultra-conservative women’s group, titled “We Know What a Woman Is” to praise new discriminatory state laws 

• Used state resources and personnel to promote a fundraising campaign for anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers” to celebrate the anniversary of the Dobbs decision

• Unnecessarily entered into an agreed order in a federal lawsuit filed by a California gun rights group to overturn a state law regarding firearms permits

• Unnecessarily involved his office in a suit involving a Kentucky wedding photographer who refused to perform services for a same-sex wedding

• Unnecessarily supported a Texas lawsuit seeking to overturn a rule allowing the U. S. Department of Veteran Affairs to provide access to abortions and abortion counseling for veterans

• Unnecessarily joined a Texas lawsuit challenging the Biden Administration’s border patrol policies

• Unnecessarily joined yet another lawsuit against Yelp that would end a disclaimer the online company uses on advertisements for “crisis pregnancy centers”

• Unnecessarily filed a brief supporting Florida’s ban on using Medicaid funds for gender transition procedures

• Using taxpayer money to beef up his office, adding a 10-attorney “strategic litigation unit” to continue fighting for what Skrmetti calls “proactive litigation.”

Clemmons said: “Nowhere among the dozens of statutes in the Tennessee code is there an authorization for the Attorney General to use taxpayer resources and his office to promote his own political agenda or that of his political party.”

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Officials Without Borders: TN Gets Involved at the Texas Border, Florida Gender Identity Case

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee visits Tennessee National Guard troops in Texas in 2021. Credit: State of Tennessee

Tennessee state Republican leaders are inserting themselves (and even the Tennessee National Guard) into other states, and one is getting blasted for his troubles. 

Last week, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced he was sending 100 Guard troops to Texas “to secure the U.S. Southern border amid an ongoing national security crisis and surging drug crisis being fueled by an open border.” This week, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti joined the state’s name to a fracas in Florida over a gender identity case in a school. 

Two weeks ago, Texas Governor Greg Abbot invited other states to support “Operation Lone Star” to secure the U.S./Mexico border after expiration of Title 42, a Trump-era covid policy that allowed the U.S. to quickly turn away migrants.    

“America continues to face an unprecedented border crisis that threatens our nation’s security and the safety of Tennesseans,” Lee said in a statement last week. “The federal government owes Americans a plan to secure our country, and in the meantime, states continue to answer this important call to service.”

The Guard troops were to deploy at the end of May. They were slated to be patrolling the border and adding additional security there. They were to also help clear roads and routes, place barriers, and remove debris. Also, the Tennessee troops were to be helping to staff outposts on the border. 

Lee sent 300 Tennessee National Guard troops to the border in July 2021, at the time calling it “the most severe border crisis we’ve seen in 20 years.” Those troops were also requested by Abbott. Lee promised more troops for border security in December 2021 to be sent in 2022, but it’s unclear if they were deployed. The July 2021 move by Lee earned him blowback from some who called it a political stunt.    

Many expressed similar feelings (on Twitter anyway) about Lee’s most recent move to send Tennessee troops into another state in the name of national security. 

But the move had its share of supporters (on Twitter), too.

Meanwhile, state AG Skrmetti joined a coalition of 21 other states’ AGs on a legal brief, inserting themselves and the power they wield in a family-and-school matter near Tallahassee from 2020.    

A news release from the AG’s office said back in 2020 two parents told their child’s school that the child was experiencing “gender confusion.” The parents didn’t want anyone at school to change the child’s name or use “they/them pronouns.” But Skrmetti said school officials met “secretly” with the child about it all and they never told the parents.

Jonathan Skrmetti (Credit: tncourts.gov)

The AGs want a court to reverse a lower court’s ruling in the matter and “reaffirm parents’ longstanding, and fundamental, right to be informed of critical information about their child’s mental health, and well-being.” 

They argue that students must get parental consent to ”vote, enlist in the military without parental consent, and drink alcohol.” Further, they said school’s can’t treat a student’s depression or other mental health issues without involving parents, and that have “no duty or right to keep parents in the dark about gender-related distress either.”

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Trial Here Will Test New Law Stripping Local DAs of Post-Conviction Review

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Court arguments are set to begin in Memphis on Friday in a case that will test a new state law that stripped local control of post-conviction proceedings in capital cases and granted it to the Tennessee Attorney General.

In capital cases, individuals often seek a review of their convictions, requesting a different judge to assess evidence, determine intellectual disability, competency for execution, and other factors in the hopes of obtaining a reduced sentence. This process is known as collateral review.

Previously, local district attorneys represented the state in these cases. However, a bill passed by the Republican-dominated Tennessee General Assembly and signed by Republican Governor Bill Lee granted this authority to Republican Tennessee Attorney General and Reporter Jonathan Skrmetti.

“The attorney general and reporter will have exclusive control over the state’s defense of the request for collateral review,” stated the bill. “The attorney general and reporter will not be bound by any stipulations, concessions, or agreements made by a district attorney general regarding a request for collateral review. This amendment prohibits a trial court from issuing a final order granting relief in a request for collateral review until the attorney general and reporter files a response to the request.”

The House bill was filed in January, but it felt largely under the radar, primarily focusing on the requirement for law enforcement agencies to inventory sexual assault kits.

However, an amendment removed all of that language and completely re-wrote the bill to give the state AG control in these post-conviction cases. The legislature passed the bill in mid-April, and the governor signed it into law later that month. 

“This sudden move appears to be a response to the choices of voters in both Davidson County and Shelby County, who elected prosecutors to support more restorative and less punitive policies,” read a statement at the time from Tennesseeans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. 

Larry McKay, who received two death sentences for the murders of two store clerks in Shelby County in 1981, has now requested a court review of previously unexamined evidence in his case. Despite the new law, his attorney seeks disqualification of the “unelected” Tennessee Attorney General from the review.

McKay argues that the new law infringes on the responsibilities of local district attorneys, thereby violating the Tennessee Constitution. Additionally, he contends that the drastic alteration of the legislation violates the state constitution.

In support of McKay’s request, Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy wants to review the new evidence. In a letter this month, Mulroy said, “The newly enacted statute is an unconstitutional effort to divest and diminish the authority granted to Tennessee’s District Attorneys General by the Tennessee Constitution. The new statute violates the voting rights of such voters because it strips material discretion from District Attorneys, who are elected by the qualified voters of the judicial district.”

State attorneys argue that McKay has sought review of his case multiple times in various courts. They challenge the arguments put forth by his attorney, asserting that the new statute does not violate the state constitution. They further note that McKay may not even get the desired outcome if the new evidence is reviewed.

“The General Assembly was entitled to take that statuary power away from the district attorneys and give it to the Attorney General in capital cases,” reads the court document. “They have done just that and their mandate must be followed.”

Memphis Criminal Court Judge Paula Skahan is scheduled to preside over the case and hear arguments on Friday at 10 a.m.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

State Attorney General’s Budget Up $2.2M to Fight Feds, Cities

State Capitol (Credit: Tennessee State Government)

Facing a spate of legal battles with Tennessee cities and the federal government, the Attorney General’s Office enters this year with a new “strategic litigation unit” and heftier budget.

As part of a $56.2 billion budget for fiscal 2023-24, the Legislature approved 10 more positions at a cost of $2.25 million for Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti.

That gives the office a $52.95 million payroll for 363 positions with an average salary of $146,600. Including operating costs, the office’s budget will hit nearly $6.75 million on July 1, up almost 9 percent from this year’s total. The total includes $5.1 million from a market adjustment recommended by the Ernst & Young study conducted for executive department pay.

That figure also contains $5,078,500 for a grab bag of legal expenses such as filing fees, expert witness expenses and contracts, in addition to outside counsel on a wide variety of cases ranging from opioid litigation to TennCare investigations. The office spent $5 million on those items this fiscal year, matching the amount the state spent this year and $6 million in fiscal 2021-22.

The 10-attorney special unit was discussed in-depth during budget hearings, Chief of Staff Brandon Smith says, and will focus on “proactive litigation defending the separation of powers and the constitutional rights of Tennesseans, the defense of state laws presenting significant federalism issues, and pursue transparency and accountability for certain corporate activities that undermine the democratic process and harm consumers.”

Not a full year into the job, Skrmetti doesn’t necessarily have a different philosophy than his predecessor, Herbert Slatery, but appears to be taking a slightly more active role against what he considers federal incursions.

For instance, the Attorney General’s Office joined a national effort to stop President Joe Biden’s Administration from putting new regulations on ovens, stoves, dishwashers and refrigerators. Skrmetti also joined 23 states in requesting a court injunction on an Environmental Protection Agency rule to expand federal authority over bodies of water nationwide.

In yet another case, Skrmetti filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit arguing against the Biden Administration’s attempt to make the abortion drug mifepristone available through the mail.

“Abortion is a matter of state law and Tennesseans, acting through their elected representatives, have chosen to prohibit elective abortions and to strictly regulate the use of abortion-inducing drugs such as mifepristone,” Skrmetti says.

The Attorney General’s Office also must deal with a challenge of the state’s new law prohibiting gender affirming care for minors, in addition to an injunction placed on the Legislature’s move to reduce the size of the Metro Nashville Council.

The Legislature’s critics, mainly House and Senate Democrats, are fond of saying the Republican-controlled chambers pass lawsuits, not legislation. Based on the Attorney General’s Office budget, they have a pretty solid argument.

Fresh off a three-year legal battle over the state’s Education Savings Accounts program, which provides public dollars to send low-income students to private schools, the state finds itself in another tussle with Metro Nashville over the new law to cut the Metro Council to 20 from 40. A state court judge put a temporary hold on that measure, forcing Skrmetti to issue a statement saying the state won’t appeal the decision but will allow the size of the council to take effect with the 2027 election.

Skrmetti contends the court left the 20-member cap on metropolitan councils intact when the majority concluded Metro’s plaintiffs are “not likely to succeed on their claim that it violates … the Tennessee Constitution.”

Metro Law Director Wally Dietz points out the trial court ruled unanimously that applying the council cut to this year’s election violates the Home Rule Amendment to the state Constitution. But while the court ruled 2-1 that Metro hasn’t proven its case on keeping the council at 40, the decision isn’t final.

Still expecting to prevail, Metro will make arguments against the cap that weren’t part of the initial injunction hearing. The court is expected to hold a hearing later this year.

Meanwhile, Metro Nashville’s legal office is concerned about other bills targeting the local government and is considering other possible lawsuits, according to Dietz. Those include measures to give top state officials control over appointments to the airport and sports authorities and dismantling a community oversight board that handles complaints against the police department.

Costs start to rise

Since Republican Gov. Bill Lee took office in 2019, the Attorney General’s Office has grown nearly every year. 

The fiscal 2019-20 budget had 341 positions for former Attorney General Herbert Slatery with a $36.18 million payroll and $1.56 million spent on outside counsel, compared to $6 million a year ago.

In the final year of Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen’s administration, the Attorney General’s Office had 341 positions with a total cost of $30.24 million, including $1.16 million in special litigation costs.

Early in Republican Gov. Bill Haslam’s tenure, the AG’s Office cut personnel to 320 with a payroll of $24.7 million and special litigation of only $1.83 million in fiscal 2012-13. 

Since then, the number of attorneys working for the state has crept up, reflecting an increase in the amount of legal work.

Democratic lawmakers argue that much of the litigation is self-inflicted.

“It’s just the continued bad legislation that’s coming out of the General Assembly. I guess they need more attorneys to be able to defend the multiple lawsuits the General Assembly forces them into,” says state Rep. Bo Mitchell. “Whether it’s preventing children from getting health care to taking over the city of Nashville, it’s never-ending.”

Mitchell, a Nashville Democrat, says many of the attorney general’s tasks come at the direction of the Legislature. 

“It keeps coming back to the same place,” he says.

In fact, the attorney general does take direction from the governor and legislative leaders.

It’s just the continued bad legislation that’s coming out of the General Assembly. I guess they need more attorneys to be able to defend the multiple lawsuits the General Assembly forces them into.

– Rep. Bo Mitchell, D-Nashville

Skrmetti, however, made the call on his own to reach an agreement with a California firearms organization to lower Tennessee’s gun-carry age to 18 from 21 under the permit-less carry law. He then consulted the state’s top leaders.  

Rep. Charlie Baum, a member of the House finance committee, points out the Attorney General’s Office has a heavy workload, going after opioid distributors much as it once fought the tobacco industry, in addition to dealing with federal and local issues.

Skrmetti’s office recently announced Tennessee received a $163.9 million payment from major tobacco companies from a 1998 settlement that resolved the state’s lawsuit for violations of consumer protection laws and deceptive marketing practices. All told, the state has gotten $3.8 billion through the settlement.

The state also joins multiple lawsuits against the federal government where states are suing the federal government for items considered forms of “overreach” through its legislation and policies, Baum notes.

“These tend to be the red states that are the ones more apt to sue the federal government,” he says.

Baum also believes the state is running into higher legal costs, in part, because of “activist” judges, and he points toward the years-long litigation over private school vouchers as proof.

In that case, the Davidson County trial court and Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled the state violated the Home Rule Amendment by starting the voucher program in Metro Nashville and Shelby County school districts without getting local approval. The Tennessee Supreme Court, however, ruled in favor of the state using a technicality to enable the voucher program to take effect.

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on Facebook and Twitter.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

TN AG Condemns “Political Violence” On Actions Against Tennessee Holler, Lawmakers

Credit: Tennessee Holler/Twitter, Tennessee State Capitol/Facebook

The Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti condemned “political violence” in an official statement Thursday saying, “Tennessee has suffered through an awful season.”

That season includes the loss of three students and school officials in a deadly shooting at Nashville’s Covenant School, nine Fort Campbell soldiers killed in a recent helicopter crash near the state line, and more than a dozen Tennesseans killed in severe storms over the weekend. 

While Skrmetti said many “have responded with our best,” he said “unfortunately, some have chosen a different path” and pointed to two recent developments. 

Tennessee Attorney General John Skrmetti (credit TN.gov)

On Saturday, an unknown assailant shot bullets into the Williamson County home of Justin Kanew, founder of the Tennessee Holler, an online Tennessee news source. Kanew and his family, including his sleeping children, were inside the home at the time.  

”This violence has no place in a civilized society and we are thankful no one was physically hurt,” Kanew tweeted Saturday. “The authorities have not completed their investigation and right now we do not know for sure the reason for this attack.” 

”I don’t know him personally, though I know I often disagree with him,” Skrmetti said in a statement. “Regardless of any differences of opinion, though, as a dad and as an attorney general I cannot tolerate this attack against him and his family.”

The AG also said state lawmakers are receiving “graphic, anonymous death threats.” Skrmetti did not elaborate. 

However, the alleged threats come as the Tennessee General Assembly is embattled in a tense stand-off on gun control in the wake of the Covenant shooting. Thousands of protestors have gathered in and on the ground of the Tennessee State Capitol to call for gun control in recent days. 

Hundreds of protesters gathered again on Thursday in support of the “Tennessee Three,” Reps. Justin Pearson (D-Memphis), Gloria Johnson (D-Knoxville), and Justin Jones (D-Nashville), who face expulsion from the state House for leading a protest about gun control on the House floor last Thursday. 

“No Tennessean should have to worry about their safety, or the safety of their family, because of the opinions they express,” Skrmetti said. “No lawmaker should face injury or death for serving as an elected representative of the people. 

“Disagreement is a good thing. Democracy depends on disagreement. Each of us has a right, guaranteed by the Constitution, to express our opinions. There are limits on how we express those opinions, and those limits are governed by the legislature, by the courts, and ultimately by the people.”