Tag: Jonathan Skrmetti

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

TN AG: State Constitution Allows Tickets to Legislative Session

State Capitol (Photo: Tennessee State Government)

A ticketing system that restricts public access to the Tennessee House of Representatives is allowable under the state’s constitution, according to a legal opinion from Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti.

House Speaker Cameron Sexton surprised lawmakers and members of the public last month by introducing the new policy, which allocates one ticket for every lawmaker to give to the public during each House session.

In practice, the ticketing system has meant that Tennessee’s super-majority GOP House can control its audience while conducting public business.  GOP lawmakers get 75 tickets and Democrats 24, all for the west balcony overlooking the House floor. The east side of the gallery remains open to the media and public.

Sexton has defended the policy against criticism, saying representatives want to ensure visitors they know are arriving have seats, even if they are a few minutes late. He said lawmakers could also share tickets and noted that Congress also has a ticketing system.

Establishing a ticketing system falls within the authority of the General Assembly to regulate and manage access to the Capitol building, the legal opinion, issued last week, said.

According to the opinion, “the Tennessee Constitution contemplates that sessions during which the General Assembly conducts its business will be open to the public, but it does not guarantee the public a right of access to legislative sessions,” it said.

The Tennessee Constitutions says that “doors of each House and of committees of the whole shall be kept open, unless when the business shall be such as ought to be kept secret.”

The ticketing system, the opinion said, “would not run afoul of the “open door” provision of (the Tennessee Constitution) because it would not close the doors to the public; it would merely manage public access to the limited space that is available.”

Skrmetti opinion – House ticketing system

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network 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
Politics Politics Feature

Taylor Still At It

Brent Taylor (Photo: Senator Brent Taylor | Facebook)

State Senator Brent Taylor, who is functioning as a sort of self-appointed scourge of Shelby County’s existing law-enforcement infrastructure, is at it again — attempting to prod state government into intervening against “the slow movement of cases” through the county’s criminal justice system.

“Crime in Memphis has risen to a level that requires immediate action to save the city,” Taylor proclaimed in a newly released letter to Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. He cites figures appearing to show that processing of criminal cases in the county dropped to a level of 40 cases last year, down from “approximately 200 per year prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Taylor’s letter poses four questions to the attorney general:

“(1) Does the Governor of Tennessee have the authority to assign judges from one or more judicial districts to other judicial districts for purposes of trying criminal cases?

“(2) Does the Governor of Tennessee have the authority to temporarily assign judges from a certain judicial district to try criminal cases in that same judicial district?

“(3) Does the Governor of Tennessee have the authority to require Shelby County Circuit Court Judges to handle criminal matters in Shelby County?

“(4) Who has the authority to require certain Shelby County Circuit Court Judges to assist with and/or try criminal cases?”

Taylor, who represents state Senate District 31, said in the letter that, if the governor is deemed to have such authority to assign judges — whether from other judicial districts or from other courts within the same district — to help process criminal cases in Shelby County, then he would request the governor do so immediately.

“By prosecuting criminal cases quickly, we will remove violent and repeat criminal offenders from the streets of Memphis so that the law-abiding can raise their families in peace and safety,” he wrote in the letter.

Taylor, who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote, “I am determined to pursue any legal avenue available to tackle our serious violent crime problem.”

This new letter is the latest in a series of public statements in which the senator, who was elected to his first term just last year, has inquired of other state officials about the possibility of extending state power into areas that have previously been reserved for local authorities.

In previous missives to the governor, to House Speaker Cameron Sexton, and to the state board of professional responsibility, he has proposed such actions as sending the National Guard into Memphis and reducing the supervisory power of Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy.

The senator has introduced a legislative package in Nashville that, among other things, would change bail laws, require law enforcement to report undocumented immigrants, and reclassify stolen gun charges.

Another of his proposals would exempt Memphis police from having to uphold a city council prohibition against preemptive traffic stops for suspected minor infractions. At the moment, this matter has achieved hot-button status in city government.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Tennessee Attorney General Condemns New EEOC Guidelines Regarding Sexual Harassment

Jonathan Skrmetti (Photo: tncourts.gov)

Tennessee’s Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti believes that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) “Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace” is “arbitrary and capricious,” and “unconstitutional.”

On November 1st, Skrmetti, on behalf of the state of Tennessee along with 19 other state attorneys general, released comments regarding the EEOC’s new guidance, as he and others believe it would “unleash unconstitutional chaos in the nation’s workplace.”

“The EEOC has once again proposed enforcement guidance that extends beyond its statutory authority and threatens the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans,” Skrmetti said. “Tennessee has successfully challenged EEOC’s unlawful guidance in the past and stands ready to do so again.”   

Skrmetti specifically called out how the new guidelines have broadened “sex-based harassment” to include “intentional and repeated use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s gender identity.” The new guidelines also include bathroom bans and discrimination.

“Examples include epithets regarding sexual orientation or gender identity … or the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity,” the guidelines said.

In the letter, Skrmetti reminded the EEOC that the state of Tennessee was joined by other Republican state attorneys general in 2021 to bring a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education along with the commission, which “advanced a vastly expanded view of Title VII liability for the nation’s employers.”

“[EEOC] Chair [Charlotte] Burrows unilaterally issued that guidance in 2021 without opportunity for comment, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee enjoined it,” the letter said.

The letter lists a number of reasons as to why Skrmetti and others oppose the new guidelines. The text asserts that these new proposals “exceed the agency’s Title VII authority,” and that they violate the United States Constitution.

“Free-speech limits do not allow EEOC to compel employers to ‘speak its preferred message’ against their will,” the letter said. It also mentioned that employees and employers who do comply to the EEOC’s “chosen gender ideology orthodoxy” are potentially compromising their religious freedoms.

Skrmetti and others have urged the EEOC to “make appropriate changes.” They have also stated that they are prepared to pursue legal action.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

TN AG Moves to Close NAACP Suit On Voting Rights

Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash

A lingering legal battle that was poised to be settled this summer, leading to a clearer pathway for tens of thousands of Tennesseans to restore their voting rights, has instead reignited into a contentious court fight with no certain outcome ahead of the next presidential election.

One in five Black voting-age Tennesseans lacks the right to vote due to a past criminal conviction — likely the highest rate of African-American disenfranchisement in the nation, according to the Sentencing Project. Overall, nearly 10 percent of the Tennessee electorate — 470,000 people — have lost their right to vote due to convictions.

In a lawsuit filed in December 2020, the Tennessee Conference of the NAACP and five residents denied the right to vote alleged Tennessee officials failed to follow state laws that allow individuals to legally restore their voting rights after serving their sentences and completing parole. Instead, the state implemented inaccessible and opaque processes that impede legal pathways for restoring rights, the lawsuit claimed.

Close to settling key claims in the case over the summer — potentially ahead of high profile local elections in Nashville, Memphis, and for state office — attorneys for the state abruptly broke off talks in late July, catching lawyers for the NAACP by surprise, legal filings show. Then, on August 2nd, lawyers for the Tennessee Attorney General filed motions asking a judge to reject the claims entirely.

Tennessee Supreme Court rules in felony voting rights case

Tennessee Lookout

“The Elections Division, TDOC, and Governor’s office had the opportunity this summer to create accessible, transparent, and uniform procedures to allow the over 470,000 disenfranchised Tennesseans a fair shot at getting their voting rights restored and rejoining their communities as full citizens,” Blair Bowie, an attorney representing the NAACP with the DC-based Campaign Legal Center, said Friday.

“Instead, they blew up the voting rights restoration system entirely and imposed effectively permanent disenfranchisement on July 21st,” she said. 

A spokesperson for the Tennessee Attorney General did not respond to emailed questions on Friday. 

The breakdown in the federal case came shortly after a June 29th ruling by the Tennessee Supreme Court against Ernest Falls, who was denied the right to vote in Tennessee in 2020 after receiving clemency in Virginia for a decades-old crime. 

The Supreme Court ruled that Falls, also represented by the Campaign Legal Center, was required to show he had paid all outstanding court costs, restitution and child support obligations in Virginia to establish his voting rights — in addition to proof of the Virginia clemency.

Secretary of State Mark Goins then issued a memo that incorporated expanded requirements for all state residents seeking to restore their voting rights — regardless of where their conviction took place. In addition to the process of demonstrating they, too, had paid court costs and other financial obligations related to their crime, in-state residents must now show they also “have been pardoned by a Governor, U.S. President, or other appropriate authority of a state or have had their full rights of citizenship restored as prescribed by law.”

The memo wasn’t shared with attorneys for the NAACP who had been involved with them in settlement negotiations for months, legal filings said.

“Plaintiffs learned from public reporting that Defendant Goins had that day issued guidance to county election officials changing his interpretation of the State’s requirements for individuals with felony convictions to restore their voting rights,” court records said.

In seeking a ruling dismissing major elements of the case, state lawyers have argued in motions for summary judgment that the five individuals names in the suit lack standing in court.

Tennessee does have a process in place for restoration of rights, one that provides a pathway to restoring rights while preserving election integrity, they argued.

“Tennessee does not reject all voter registration forms on which the applicant affirmed that they have a felony conviction,” the state’s filings said. “Moreover, Tennessee’s practice is rationally related to its legitimate interest in combatting voter fraud, safeguarding voter confidence, and ensuring accurate record keeping.”

The Sentencing Project’s national voting rights study found that that 3,415 Tennessee voting-age citizens have been granted Certificates of Restoration since 2016 — fewer than 1 percent of those with prior felony convictions estimated to be eligible to vote under Tennessee law.

The NAACP lawsuit argues that the current administration of voting rights restoration certificates violate the U.S. Constitution’s due process and the equal protection rights.

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

Attorneys General Want Congressional Review of AI-Created Child Pornography

Photo by Michael Dziedzic on Unsplash

A bipartisan group of District Attorneys General urged Congress to broaden its review of artificial intelligence (AI) to specifically include its use in creating deepfake images of child pornography. 

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti joined colleagues from 54 states and territories in a Tuesday letter asking federal officials to examine AI’s use in making child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The letter gave an example of how the process works.      

“AI tools can rapidly and easily create ‘deepfakes’ by studying real photographs of abused children to generate new images showing those children in sexual positions,” the letter reads. “This involves overlaying the face of one person on the body of another. Deepfakes can also be generated by overlaying photographs of otherwise unvictimized children on the internet with photographs of abused children to create new CSAM involving the previously unharmed children.” 

The group said AI can also be used to create sexualized images an videos of children who “do not exist.”

“AI can combine data from photographs of both abused and non-abused children to animate new and realistic sexualized images of children who do not exist, but who may resemble actual children,” reads the letter. “Creating these images is easier than ever, as anyone can download the AI tools to their computer and create images by simply typing in a short description of what the user wants to see. And because many of these AI tools are ’open- source,’ the tools can be run in an unrestricted and un-policed way.”

The group of attorneys general want Congress to form a special commission to specifically study how AI can be used to exploit children. They also want federal lawmakers to move to expand existing restrictions on CSAM to explicitly cover AI-generated CSAM.  

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.”