Skip to content
National Association of Attorneys General
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Consumer Protection
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us
National Association of Attorneys General
  • Find My AG
  • Consumer Complaints
  • Member Benefits
  • Contact Us
Log In
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Consumer Protection
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us

Recent Attorney General Powers and Duties Cases—In Brief | 2nd Quarter 2023

Home / NAAG, Attorneys General / Recent Attorney General Powers and Duties Cases—In Brief | 2nd Quarter 2023
November 20, 2023 NAAG, Attorneys General, Powers and Duties
Share this

  • Emily Myers
    Antitrust Counsel and Chief Editor
    National Association of Attorneys General

Arkansas—Johnson, a death-row prisoner, sought post-conviction DNA testing of pieces of evidence found at the crime scene under Arkansas’ Act 1780. The Arkansas supreme court affirmed a trial court’s denial of Johnson’s petition, holding that Act 1780 only authorizes DNA testing “if it can provide materially relevant evidence that will significantly advance the petitioner’s claim of innocence in light of all evidence presented to the jury.”  The petitioner must show that the DNA testing “may produce new material evidence that would (A) support a theory of defense that “would establish the petitioner’s actual innocence” and (B) raise a reasonable probability that the petitioner did not commit the offense.” (internal quotes omitted).

Johnson brought a §1983 action in federal court against the attorney general, the county prosecutor, and the director of the state’s crime laboratory, alleging that their refusal to allow him to test the evidence was a denial of his due process and seeking an order directing them to release the evidence to him. Defendants argued that Johnson lacked standing because they have no connection to the Arkansas judiciary’s enforcement of Act 1780. They also argued that they were protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The district court disagreed with defendants, who appealed to the Eighth Circuit.

The Eighth Circuit held that Johnson had standing to challenge Act 1780 and the actions of the attorney general, prosecutor, and crime lab director. Citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Reed v. Goertz, 143 S.Ct. 955 (2023), in which it rejected Texas’ argument that the death-row prisoner in that case did not have standing, the Eighth Circuit held that Johnson had standing. With respect to the attorney general, the court held that Act 1780 allows the prosecuting attorney or the attorney general to respond to a petition like Johnson’s, and in this case, the attorney general did respond, opposing Johnson’s petition. The attorney general could have instead agreed to the DNA testing, so the Eighth Circuit held that the attorney general “thereby caused” in part, Johnson’s ongoing injury. This same injury serves to overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity as well, since Johnson is seeking prospective injunctive relief (as permitted by Ex Parte Young) and the parties, including the attorney general, have a sufficient connection to the enforcement of Act 1780. Johnson v. Griffin,  69 F.4th 506 (8th Cir. 2023).

Massachusetts—The state contracted with IDDC for protective gear during the COVID-19 pandemic. IDDC used a subcontractor, USiDG, who spent the state’s money, but supplied almost none of the contracted-for material. The Massachusetts attorney general issued a civil investigative demand (CID) to USiDG, seeking information and a video deposition. USiDG responded by letter, declining to provide the documents or the deposition, but did not file a motion seeking to set aside or modify the CID as allowed under Massachusetts law. The attorney general filed an action to enforce the CID. USiDG argued that the attorney general lacked authority to bring this action and the court lacked personal jurisdiction over USiDG. The court concluded that USiDG waived its personal jurisdiction defense by failing to file a motion for a protective order in response to the CID. The court cited prior Massachusetts caselaw, which held that “Merely informing the Attorney General of its refusal to comply does not suffice to shift the burden to the Attorney General to take the next legal step.”  With respect to the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction, the court granted the attorney general’s motion for jurisdictional discovery about the facts surrounding the contract with USiDG and its connections with Massachusetts. Attorney General v. USiDG, 2023 Mass. Super. LEXIS 34 (Mass. Super. Suffolk Cty. Apr. 20, 2023).

New Mexico—In the context of a proceeding under New Mexico’s public records act, a New Mexico appellate court discussed the relationship between the attorney general’s office and the New Mexico Livestock Board (the Board). The Board declined to disclose a communication between the Board’s General Counsel and the attorney general’s office asking whether the Board could take certain actions in light of pending and potential litigation against the Board. The plaintiff argued that the communication was not made for the “purpose of facilitating or providing professional legal services” to the Board. The court held, “whether a proposed course of action will be in compliance with litigation or potential litigation is exactly the sort of request from an agency for legal advice the privilege protects.”   Henry v. N.M. Livestock Board, 2023 N.M. App. LEXIS 27 (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2023).

Ohio—Plaintiff filed a mandamus action against OneOhio Recovery Foundation (OneOhio) seeking documents under Ohio’s Public Records Act. OneOhio stated that it was a private nonprofit corporation and was not a “public office” subject to the Public Records Act. Plaintiff argued that OneOhio was the functional equivalent of a public office under Ohio law. OneOhio was created under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the state and local governments to allocate and use Ohio’s share of the settlement proceeds in the national opioid litigation. OneOhio’s governing board, which has 29 members, includes members selected by the governor and the attorney general, as well as the legislature and state and local authorities. OneOhio has an expert panel, with members appointed by the Board members chosen by the governor, the attorney general and the local governments. The MOU provides guidelines for disbursement of opioid litigation settlement proceeds.

The Ohio supreme court analyzed several factors in deciding that OneOhio was the functional equivalent of a public office under the Ohio Public Records Act. The court found that OneOhio was performing a governmental function, because rather than providing substance-abuse treatment, it was disbursing public money for that purpose. The court noted that the members of OneOhio’s Board, and its Executive Director, are appointed by state and local government officials. The court also emphasized that OneOhio’s operational expenses have been paid entirely by the attorney general while the Foundation awaits receipt of settlement proceeds for its funding. “Specifically, [plaintiff] submitted evidence of a $1 million payment from the attorney general’s office to [OneOhio] in September 2022, which was earmarked for [OneOhio] ‘startup expenses.’”   Finally, the court found that in the absence of the MOU creating OneOhio, the settlement funds would have gone directly from the attorney general to state or local governments, as required by statute. The court concluded that OneOhio was the functional equivalent of a public office and subject to the Open Records Act. State ex rel. Harm Reduction Ohio v. OneOhio Recovery Fndn., 198 N.E.3d 100 (Ohio 2023).

Texas–A mother was ordered to pay child support, but two years later the court terminated that obligation and ordered the father to pay child support instead. The Texas attorney general’s office (OAG) continued to garnish the mother’s wages after this change and failed to enforce the child support obligations of the father. The mother filed a motion to compel termination of the withholding order and sought sanctions against OAG, alleging that OAG failed to comply with the court order terminating her child support obligation which was an abuse of process and demonstrated bad faith. OAG responded that the court did not have jurisdiction to award sanctions, based on OAG’s sovereign immunity and the separation of powers doctrine. The trial court dismissed OAG”s argument but scheduled a later hearing on the sanctions and OAG appealed.

The appellate court held that what the mother was seeking in this action was in the nature of a determination of the rights and obligations of the parties, which is not barred by sovereign immunity. With respect to the request for sanctions, OAG argued that the trial court has “inherent authority to sanction bad faith conduct resulting from the impeding of the “judicial process itself” (emphasis in original) and that its actions in the administrative process for the writ of withholding are not part of the judicial process. OAG cited cases seeking sanctions under the Texas civil remedies statute. In this case, however, the mother was seeking sanctions under the trial court’s inherent authority. The appellate court noted, “It is well established that when the State enters the courts as a litigant, it must observe and will be bound by the same evidentiary and procedural rules that apply to all litigants.”  In this case, OAG acknowledged that it could be sanctioned under Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court did not see a difference between its authority under the Rule and the court’s inherent authority.

Citing Texas supreme court precedent, the court noted, “Courts possess inherent powers that aid the exercise of their jurisdiction, facilitate the administration of justice, and preserve the independence and integrity of the judicial system.”  The court held that the trial court has jurisdiction to order sanctions under its inherent authority, and sovereign immunity is not implicated. Because the trial court had not yet ordered sanctions, the appellate court determined that the issue of separation of powers was not ripe for decision. In the Interest of E.M., 665 S.W. 2d 832 (Tex. App. 2023).

 

 

Related Posts

Related Posts

powers and duties, attorney general powers

Recent Attorney General Powers and Duties Cases—In Brief | Late 2024

powers and duties, attorney general powers

Recent Attorney General Powers and Duties Cases — In Brief | Early 2025

Shows no photo available image placeholder

NAAG Announces 2024 Annual Award Recipients for Exceptional Service to the Attorney General Community

Connect with NAAG and the Attorney General Community

Create a NAAG account to subscribe to our newsletters or mailing lists.

Create Account
Subscribe
Marble columns and the top of a federal building

scroll to filters

White Logo for the National Association of Attorneys General

1850 M Street NW
12th floor
Washington, DC 20036

TEL 202-326-6000
EMAIL 

Youtube
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Consumer Protection
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us
  • Find My AG
  • Consumer Complaints
  • Member Benefits
  • Contact Us
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Privacy & Cookies Notice
  • Sitemap
  • Member Login

About the National Association of Attorneys General

As the nonpartisan national forum for America's state and territory attorneys general and their staff, NAAG provides collaboration, insight, and expertise to empower and champion America's attorneys general.
Learn More

© 2025 Copyright National Association of Attorneys General

Website by Yoko Co

Internal Feedback / Report an Error

Request an Update / Report an Error

The change you are requesting will be linked to this page. The URL for the page will be included in a hidden field when the form is submitted.
Please enter your change or describe your request. Be sure to reference where the error appears on the page and what needs to be done specifically.
Upload any files that need to be linked to this page. PDF only. Submit another request if you have more than five files to upload.
Drop files here or
Accepted file types: pdf, docx, xls, Max. file size: 50 MB, Max. files: 5.

    Who is requesting this change?(Required)

    Scroll To Top
    To provide you more clarity about how we collect, store and use personal information, and your rights to control that information, we have updated our privacy policy, which also explains how we use cookies. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.I Agree