Latest news with #McCuskey
The Hill
24-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
West Virginia asks Supreme Court to hear trans athlete case after ruling on gender-affirming care
West Virginia on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to hear a case against a state law barring transgender athletes from girls' and women's school sports teams, citing the high court's recent decision to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors. In a statement, West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey (R) said the state is confident in the merits of its case and defense of its law, the 'Save Women's Sports Act' that former Gov. Jim Justice (R) signed in 2021. 'The law is constitutional and complies with Title IX,' McCuskey said Tuesday, referencing the federal law against sex discrimination that President Trump's administration has said prohibits transgender girls from participating on girls' school sports teams. McCuskey praised the justice's ruling in the Tennessee case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, as 'a landmark decision' but said it did little to answer the specific question West Virginia first posed to the court in 2023. 'That is why we are urging the Supreme Court, through our supplemental filing, to take our case and allow the women and girls of West Virginia to begin enjoying the protections of the Save Women's Sports Act,' he said. The Supreme Court rejected a previous request to lift a lower court order that has since 2023 prevented West Virginia from enforcing its law against a now-high school student who throws discus and shot put for her school's girls' track-and-field team. When the student, Becky Pepper Jackson, first sued the state over its restrictions on transgender athletes, she was 11 years old and in middle school. Last spring, West Virginia's former attorney general, now-Gov. Patrick Morrisey (R), asked the high court to intervene for the second time. The justices have yet to respond. West Virginia's supplemental filing argues the Supreme Court's Skrmetti ruling warrants a fresh review of the law, which it says confronts 'a serious social debate.' A previous decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the measure violates Title IX and the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. 'United States v. Skrmetti disclaims any guidance on the Title IX question presented here, and the decision's equal-protection analysis does not address critical questions unique to athletics,' the filing, submitted by McCuskey, the Alliance Defending Freedom and attorneys representing members of the West Virginia Board of Education, says. It asks that the justices take up the case rather than sending it back to the 4th Circuit for further review, citing incongruity in how federal courts have responded to challenges of similar laws in over half the country. 'A remand will not resolve these circuit conflicts,' the filing argues. 'Assume the unlikely scenario where the Fourth Circuit changes course on remand and holds that a law assigning athletic teams by sex does not differentiate based on transgender status or, alternatively, holds that transgender status does not constitute a suspect class. Both circuit splits would remain: the first would move from 2–3 to 1–4, and the second from 4–2 to 3–3. The Court should thus review now.' The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Jackson, did not immediately return a request for comment on the filing. In its ruling last week, the Supreme Court declined address whether transgender status is a 'quasi-suspect class' under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In a concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that transgender people are neither a 'suspect' nor 'quasi-suspect' class, classifications that would trigger heightened scrutiny when laws discriminate against them. 'Beyond the treatment of gender dysphoria, transgender status implicates several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy — ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams,' she wrote. 'If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of 'closely scrutiniz[ing] legislative choices' in all these domains.' West Virginia's filing on Tuesday says the Supreme Court should grant its petition and explain that laws restricting trans athletes' participation in girls' sports do not classify based on transgender status 'or hold that transgender-based classifications do not affect a suspect class.' The filing also argues that the high court must decide whether its reasoning in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity, can be applied to other statutes, including Title IX. The Supreme Court declined to answer that question in its Skrmetti decision. 'Girls deserve a safe, fair playing field today — not years from now — and the ruling's present harm to women and girls is stark,' the filing says, referring to the 4th Circuit ruling that is blocking the law. The Supreme Court must act to resolve a question 'of national importance,' the filing argues, referencing an executive order signed by Trump in February that threatens to revoke federal funding from states and schools that continue allowing trans athletes to participate in girls' and women's sports. 'Should they follow an executive order that threatens all their funding—even funding unrelated to athletics? Or should they follow a court order that has not yet been applied to them?' the filing states. 'The years of delay that would follow were the Court to grant, vacate, and remand here would not help, especially when Skrmetti did not purport to address the legal questions that drive this case.' 'The Court should take up this petition,' the filing adds, 'and resolve this 'important issue' once and for all.'
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Yahoo
Alert issued for disguised Chinese vaping products targeting West Virginia kids
CHARLESTON, (WBOY) — West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McCuskey is warning of Chinese vape products that are disguised as smart devices and may attract children. According to a release from the Attorney General's Office, reports show that approximately 90% of Chinese vape products entering the United States go undetected. McCuskey and 27 other Attorney Generals have urged the Trump Administration to continue cracking down on China and its 'co-conspirators' distributing the products. 'China is sending billions of dollars of vape products to the United States, but they intentionally mislabel these products to avoid FDA regulation,' McCuskey said in the release. 'We don't know what's in these products, so adults should be aware of that risk.' Advocates help raise awareness in Harrison County for Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month McCuskey went on to say that his main concern is that some vape products seem to be targeting children. Photos provided with the release depict vapes with games and apps on the front, similar to a smart device. The release also said that some vapes have been found containing urine, methamphetamine and heroin. 'I'm a dad to two girls, so I understand parents' constant worry,' McCuskey said. 'We all want to protect our kids, and that job is harder when foreign actors directly target them. I hope to inform the public of this danger while we work with the Trump Administration to stop the problem at its source.' In December of 2024, West Virginia led the nation in the number of eighth graders who consume nicotine and tobacco products. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
06-05-2025
- Automotive
- The Hill
Coalition of GOP AGs celebrate win against California's clean-truck rule
A coalition of Republican attorneys general is claiming victory against California following the state's pledge to repeal its electric-truck mandate amid an ongoing lawsuit. California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Steve Cliff, executive officer of the California Air Resources Board, agreed in a settlement on Monday to propose the elimination of multiple portions of California's Advanced Clean Fleets regulation: its rule that has aimed to accelerate the transition to zero-emissions trucks. The settlement occurred in response to a lawsuit filed by 17 attorneys general who disputed the idea that the rule would be targeting 'any fleet that operated in California regardless of where the fleet is headquartered.' 'Given California's large population and access to international ports, this rule would have had nationwide effects on the supply chain,' the attorneys general said in a statement. As part of the settlement, Cliff agreed to propose the repeal of 'the High-Priority Fleet and Drayage Fleet Requirements,' which refers to on-road vehicles that transport containers and bulk goods to and from sea-yards and rail-yards Bonta and Cliff also conceded that they would not enforce the part of the regulation that would have required 100-percent, zero-emission-vehicle sales in the trucking sector beginning with model-year 2036. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, agreed that if California finalizes the repeals, they would dismiss their lawsuit. 'This is not only a victory for the trucking industry — it is also a victory for consumers and common sense,' West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey said in a statement. 'This mandate would have crippled the trucking industry and driven up consumer pricing,' he added. Joining McCuskey in the petition were the attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming. Also supporting them were the Nebraska Trucking Association and the Arizona State Legislature. McCuskey praised his colleagues for standing 'up to California to prevent them from pushing their obsession with electric vehicle onto the rest of the country.'
New York Times
02-05-2025
- Business
- New York Times
New ‘Climate Superfund' Laws Face Widening Legal Challenges
Vermont made history last year when it enacted the country's first climate superfund law. It's designed to let the state recover money from fossil fuel companies to help pay the rising costs of climate change. If the law can survive intensifying legal challenges, that is. On Thursday, the Justice Department filed federal lawsuits against Vermont and New York, the only other state to have enacted a climate superfund law, arguing that the measures were 'a brazen attempt to grab power from the federal government' and force others to pay for the states' infrastructure spending. Hours later, West Virginia's attorney general, John B. McCuskey, announced that he was leading another challenge to Vermont's law, saying the measure would 'fine America's coal, oil and natural gas suppliers into oblivion.' Mr. McCuskey had already filed a similar lawsuit against New York's law, which seeks $75 billion from oil and gas companies over the next 25 years. On Thursday, he said Vermont's version might be 'even more dangerous' because it has no monetary cap. He and 23 other attorneys general are seeking to join a lawsuit filed late last year by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute, an industry group, in federal court in Vermont. West Virginia is a major producer of natural gas and coal. Its complaint argues that the activities of fossil-fuel companies are legal and that 'Vermont seeks to have its cake and eat it too, by both reaping the benefits of affordable and reliable fuel, yet penalizing the entities that help produce such fuel.' The climate superfund laws are modeled on the federal Superfund program to clean up hazardous waste sites. Under that program, which has been in existence for decades, old waste dumps or contaminated industrial sites are cleaned up and the companies that contributed to the contamination must help pay the cleanup bill. The new climate superfund laws are based on the fact that the burning of fossil fuels, which produces planet-warming carbon dioxide and other gases, is the main driver of climate change. So the laws allow states to seek money from fossil fuel producers to help cover the costs of global warming. Similar bills are gaining momentum in several other states, including California, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Patrick Parenteau, an environmental law expert at Vermont Law and Graduate School, called the Justice Department cases 'virtue signaling' and said he expected them to be dismissed. In the Chamber of Commerce lawsuit, he expects the state to argue that the lawsuit is premature, since officials are still in the midst of deciding how to apply the law, and that the chamber has no standing to sue since it is not directly affected by the measure. Julie Moore, secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, who is named in both filings, said her office was reviewing the details of the cases. She added that the Justice Department action was 'not unexpected' given President Trump's April 8 executive order, 'Protecting American Energy From State Overreach.' That order specifically cited the new Vermont and New York laws, calling them akin to extortion and saying they threaten the country's economic and national security. Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, who is named in the Justice Department lawsuit, said Thursday that the climate superfund law 'ensures that those who contributed to the climate crisis help pay for the damage they caused.' Meghan Greenfield, an environmental lawyer who previously worked at the Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency and is now a partner at the firm Jenner & Block, said legal challenges to such a novel law were inevitable. Some of the arguments being used against the measures are also new and untested in this context, like one about 'equal sovereignty' between states, which is the idea that they should be treated uniformly by the federal government, she said. 'It's kind of hard to predict how it all will go, because we're looking at different layers here, a new kind of law, and new kinds of challenges against that law,' she said. She said she expected further challenges to more traditional state climate laws as well, such as New York and California measures that specify how much of a state's power supply should come from clean energy.
USA Today
19-03-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
West Virginia governor looks like a clown fighting March Madness snub: Opinion
West Virginia governor looks like a clown fighting March Madness snub: Opinion Do you know what sports fans hate more than NCAA Tournament injustice? A gasbag governor grandstanding to his political base. Show Caption Hide Caption The Florida Gators lead dominant SEC conference in NCAA tournament USAT's Jordan Mendoza talks about Florida taking the SEC over the Vols and how the SEC could dominate the March Madness down to the Final Four. Sports Seriously Watching West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey and his attorney general John McCuskey prattle on at a Monday news conference, demanding accountability and threatening legal remedies over — wait for it — the NCAA basketball tournament selection process, you might have wondered if this was all a setup for Kenan Thompson to run out on stage and yell 'Live from New York, it's Saturday Niiiiiiiiight!' A mere 18 hours after the Mountaineers were controversially snubbed from March Madness in favor of North Carolina, there was really only one thing that could kill the national sympathy being directed toward Morgantown. And wouldn't you know it, the politicians didn't disappoint. Do you know what sports fans hate more than an NCAA tournament injustice? A gasbag governor and his obsequious sidekick grandstanding to their political base, sticking their nose into a place it doesn't belong and making a mockery of the real problems in a state that has plenty of them. Seriously, gentlemen: Do you not have better things to do? 'This was a miscarriage of justice and robbery at the highest levels,' Morrisey said. 'This thing reeks of corruption.' Is that similar to the smell emanated by a former Washington, D.C. lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry who ran for office in West Virginia on a platform of fighting the opioid epidemic? Just wondering. There used to be a time in America when ambitious politicians, and particularly Republicans like Morrisey and McCuskey, would have railed against the idea of running to the courtroom to litigate any perceived minor injustice. Ah, well, nevertheless. Instead, we had Morrisey not only refusing to rule out the possibility of seeking an injunction if the NCAA doesn't cooperate immediately with McCuskey's investigation but also suggesting the West Virginia snub might have been retribution for the state suing the NCAA in 2023 over basketball player RaeQuan Battle's eligibility. 'A lot of people said, 'What are you doing?'' Morrisey said. 'We sent multiple letters they didn't respond adequately to and we fundamentally helped change the transfer eligibility rules. So I think the answer is when you're talking about multi-billion dollar businesses and universities that have a big stake in the outcome, absolutely (it's worthwhile).' Of course, one big difference: In the Battle lawsuit, West Virginia was challenging whether the NCAA's transfer rules violated antitrust laws on behalf of a citizen fighting for his rights. But this? This is just a whole lot of whining on behalf of a basketball team that lost 13 of its 32 games including to Colorado in the Big 12 tournament. And it's not even really clear what they hope to gain, other than a mention of 'objective criteria' for the NCAA tournament selection process. Which, if you have followed the selection process for any length of time, is like trying to explain why 'Anora' won Best Picture over 'Conclave.' There is no objective criteria. That's the point. And West Virginia, like every other Div. 1 school, not only knew that going in but agreed to it. Now, does that mean the committee got it right? No. West Virginia's exclusion was stunning, given that every 'bracketologist' who does this either as a job or a hobby had the Mountaineers in the field. And as we addressed Sunday night, the fact that North Carolina athletics director Bubba Cunningham chairs the selection committee isn't a great look when the final decision was literally UNC over West Virginia. In cases like this, the recusal procedures to ensure Cunningham wasn't part of the discussion or votes involving UNC don't protect the NCAA from accusations of favoritism. That gave Morrisey the opening to pounce, and if it wasn't him, it could just as easily have been the governor of Texas if the Longhorns got left out instead of the Mountaineers. 'UNC had representation in the room,' Morrisey said. 'It's being reported by a number of outlets that Cunningham had a significant bonus incentive, at least $70,000, to get into the tournament, arguably more if they advanced. I want folks to let that sink in for just a minute." Even if Cunningham did everything by the book, the selection process has long been plagued by suspicions that committee members will do their best to take care of buddies who work at other schools. And even if Cunningham never even hinted at lobbying for the Tar Heels, these committee members are colleagues and often friends who spend a lot of time with each other inside and outside the committee room during this process. So something like what happened Sunday only turbocharges conspiracy theories, and it's worth looking at whether athletics directors and conference commissioners should be the ones making these tough calls when there's so much on the line financially. But that's a matter for the leaders of college sports to reckon with — not elected officials who love to use this stuff to make it seem like they're fighting for the common man or woman when we all know it's political theater. McCuskey, the attorney general, even sounded more like a message board poster than a chief law enforcement officer in repeatedly referring to the Mountaineers as 'we' and making the case that a basketball team with guard Javon Small would have a chance to beat anyone in the country. In the end, it was deeply embarrassing for the people of West Virginia. Just like it was when some Florida politicians did the same thing after Florida State got left out of the 2023 College Football Playoff. And just like the group of legislators in Georgia, Alabama and Illinois that have recently tried to pass bills giving college athletes an exemption from state income tax on their NIL deals. In fact, it's probably not a stretch to say that no group of people has consistently done more to turn public opinion back toward the NCAA on a variety of issues than state-level legislators doing ridiculous things on behalf of college sports because they think it will win them more votes in the next election. Similar to most of those efforts, Monday's news conference was almost as funny as a variety show. Only it happened in real life, in the state of West Virginia, instead of on the SNL set where it belonged.
