NAAG is seeking articles from the attorney general community and academia to publish in the Attorney General Journal. View the submission guidelines to learn more.

How Attorneys General Can Increase Youth Involvement in the Rule of Law and the Attorneys General Office

By Raj Jaladi
January 10, 2023

A recurring concern being raised is the lack of youth/GenZ involvement in discussions of technology and governance.

  • Consumer Protection

May Consumer Protection News

Multistate Actions Led by Attorneys General Kwame Raoul (IL), Lynn Fitch (MS), Ellen Rosenblum (OR), and Jonathan Skrmetti (TN), the National Association of Attorneys General sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on behalf of a bipartisan coalition of 43 state attorneys general to urge the agency to update and strengthen the rules technology companies must…

Read More →
  • Chief of the Month
  • Consumer Protection

Jasmine S. McGhee – May 2024 Consumer Protection Chief of the Month

Jasmine S. McGhee is senior deputy attorney general and director for the North Carolina Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Division.

Read More →
  • Supreme Court

Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 12

This Report summarizes opinions issued on May 9 and 16, 2024 (Part I).

Read More →
  • Supreme Court

Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 11

This Report summarizes cases granted review on April 19 and 26, 2024 (Part I).

Read More →
  • Supreme Court

Garland v. VanDerStok, 23-852. | Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 11

This case involves the federal government’s attempted regulation of “firearms parts kits,” otherwise known as “ghost guns.” The Gun Control Act of 1986 (Act) imposes various licensing, background-check, recordkeeping, and serialization requirements on individuals engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms.

Read More →
  • Supreme Court

Lackey v. Stinnie, 23-621. | Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 11

Under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b), the “prevailing party” in certain civil rights actions can recover reasonable attorney’s fees.

Read More →
  • Supreme Court

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 23-677. | Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 11

The Court granted certiorari to resolve whether a party can compel a remand to state court by amending the complaint to omit federal questions in an action that has already been properly removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441(a).

Read More →
  • Supreme Court

Bufkin v. McDonough, 23-713. | Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 11

The issue presented is whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must “ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule,” set forth in 38 U.S.C. §5107(b), “was properly applied during the claims process [to] satisfy 38 U.S.C. §7261(b)(1), which directs the [court] to ‘take due account’ of [the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’] application of that rule.”

Read More →
  • Supreme Court

Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 23-583. | Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 11

The question presented is whether the Secretary of Homeland Security’s “decision to revoke the approval of an immigrant visa petition is subject to judicial review in district court.” The Immigration and Nationality Act provides “a two-step process through which a noncitizen may become a legal permanent resident” by marrying a U.S. citizen.

Read More →
  • Supreme Court

Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, 23-365. | Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 11

At issue is whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries can be injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Read More →
  • NAAG, Attorneys General
  • Supreme Court

Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 10

This Report summarizes opinions issued on April 12, 16, and 17, 2024 (Part I).

Read More →
  • NAAG, Attorneys General
  • Supreme Court

Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., 22-1165. | Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 10

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that “[p]ure omissions are not actionable under [Securities and Exchange Commission] Rule 10b-5(b).” Section 10(b) of the Security Exchange Act and its implementing regulation, SEC Rule 10b-5, “make[ ] it unlawful to omit material facts in connection with buying or selling securities when that omission renders ‘statements made misleading’” and provide for a private cause of action for such violations.

Read More →