Latest news with #AndreaCampbell
Boston Globe
17-05-2025
- Health
- Boston Globe
These charts show which Massachusetts agencies were hit hardest by federal funding cuts
The list of slashed funds include $118 million for a range of public health initiatives, including research into infectious diseases and vaccine distribution — both programs that ramped up following the COVID-19 pandemic. In total, the cuts amount to $350 million, or about 1.5 percent of the $22.9 billion in annual federal funds that flow into Massachusetts. The state depends heavily on this money to support its operating budget, capital projects, and grant programs. Advertisement Governor Maura Healey announced a According to the database, roughly $16 billion of the operating budget comes from federal grants, along with $1.5 billion in capital spending and another $5.3 billion through other grant mechanisms. The table below shows every state program affected by federal funding cuts so far. The governor's office is also seeking input on how federal cuts are impacting businesses, municipal governments, and nonprofits through Among the most Advertisement Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell and more than 20 other attorneys general have Neena Hagen can be reached at
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
New England AGs to Trump: ‘Bring it on'
Attorneys general from left to right: William Tong of Connecticut, Peter Neronha of Rhode Island, Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts, Charity Clark of Vermont, Aaron Frey of Maine. (Image from MassAGO livestream) Attorneys general from around New England struck a defiant posture at a town hall gathering on Friday evening. Together they pledged that nothing is off the table when it comes to holding immigration officials accountable, lauded the courts for standing firm so far, and pointed at an ever-growing pile of litigation targeting the Trump administration's actions on everything from energy policy to anti-discrimination law. 'All of us probably have a target on our back,' Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said, speaking from the IBEW Local 103 union hall in Dorchester. 'But we say bring it on.' The town hall included the region's Democratic AGs – Campbell, William Tong of Connecticut, Peter Neronha of Rhode Island, Charity Clark of Vermont, and Aaron Frey of Maine. Billed as 'United in Justice,' the gathering was distinctly aimed at Trump administration policies that the group has declared will damage the region and its residents. Attorneys general, advocacy organizations, and individuals have leveled dozens of lawsuits at the Trump administration. They say that executive actions targeting immigration, the global economy, public health and scientific research funding, higher education, and marginalized groups are 'unlawful' and 'damaging.' 'After last November's election and the anxiety that goes with it, we all felt our fight was gonna get a little tougher, a little steeper, and our work a lot harder,' said introductory speaker Lou Antonellis, business manager of the Dorchester union and executive vice president of the building and construction trades with the Greater Boston Labor Council. 'And those words ring truer and truer every day for Americans because of this administration. Unless, of course, you're rich.' A union member at the town hall noted the administration's antagonism toward renewable energy options, when unions are training their members on offshore wind work. Democratic attorneys general filed a lawsuit in Boston federal court this month to block Trump's pause on all federal wind-energy approvals. Being attorney general of a blue state during a Trump administration has proved to be a high-stakes launching pad. Gov. Maura Healey made a national name for herself as attorney general by, like her successor Campbell, taking an aggressive stance toward the first Trump presidency. Her office sued the administration nearly 100 times, while Campbell has filed more than a dozen suits against the administration in the first 100 days of the new Trump term. State law enforcement officials are in a tricky spot when it comes to defending against some federal policies, the attorneys general noted, especially around immigration. Multiple attendees asked what the state can do to push back on what one described as an 'autocratic police state.' There is significant federal authority to enforce and create immigration policies, placing the attorneys general in 'uncharted territory' in figuring out how to wield state power against federal actors. The offices are putting out guidance for individuals and organizations, fighting against policy changes that would claw back immigration protections like Temporary Protected Status, connecting people with lawyers, and reminding law enforcement that it does not need to enable Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Campbell spoke complimentarily of the decision by Worcester's police chief to request that charges be dropped against the distraught 16-year-old daughter of a woman arrested in an ICE incident that has drawn intense backlash. But 'nothing is off the table' when it comes to pushing back on ICE oversteps, she said. 'If the US attorney can threaten us about us getting in the way of these policies and immigration enforcement, well guess what? We can bring it back,' Campbell said, adding slyly, 'in a collaborative and loving way.' Neronha, of Rhode Island, said withholding cooperation to federal agents looking to 'commandeer' state law enforcement could be a serious impediment to ICE efforts. He also laid out how he sees the administration's playbook in general: bypass congressional power of the purse, strip allocated taxpayer dollars from essential programs or make sweeping declarations on constitutional matters, and challenge the legitimacy of district courts when they issue nationwide injunctions blocking the president's actions. 'What we're dealing with here, in my view, is a creeping authoritarianism,' he said. 'And it's not really creeping, is it?' To constituents who are looking for hope, he asked that they remember 'every day there are lawyers who get up in the morning, like my colleagues here and all across the country in Democratic states, and fight for you. We are your lawyers. We are fighting for you, and we are winning.' The latest legal volley from a collective of Democratic attorneys general – including the five New England AGs participating in the town hall – challenges a federal threat to withhold billions of dollars in transportation and disaster-relief funds unless states agree to cooperate with certain immigration enforcement actions. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in an emailed statement to Axios that no funding has been withheld. New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella, who was elected president of The National Association of Attorneys General in December and has not joined attorney general coalitions suing the Trump administration during this second term, is the only Republican attorney general in New England and was the only regional AG not present. A spokesperson said Formella had a full schedule for New Hampshire law enforcement memorial day, but the spokesman was not aware of Friday night's town hall. As attorney general of the most conservative New England state – though it narrowly voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election – Formella's office does not always split along partisan lines. He joined other Republican attorneys general in suits against former President Joe Biden, such as a volley against a vaccination-testing mandate, but also brought a civil rights lawsuit in 2024 against members of the neo-Nazi group Nationalist Social Club-131 who allegedly harassed a Concord cafe hosting drag story hours. The day before the town hall, Campbell and Tong joined Democratic attorneys general from New Jersey, Washington, and California after U.S. Supreme Court arguments on Trump's executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship for the children of parents who enter the U.S. illegally or on a temporary visa. Tong noted on Friday that so far the 'courts are holding,' but some of the voices in the current administration are still talking about potentially 'de-naturalizing' American citizens like his parents, Tong said. The case currently before the nation's high court is ostensibly about whether lower court judges can issue injunctions halting presidential executive orders nationwide – rather than only applying to a specific set of plaintiffs who bring suits inside specific jurisdictions – but justices toyed with whether they should consider the underlying merits of the birthright citizenship suit as well. 'I think what's most important is not just the limited argument today,' Campbell said. 'It's that everyone should care about this birthright citizenship issue. It is not just about the access to citizenship and the privileges afforded by citizenship. If they can dismantle the 14th Amendment in our Constitution, they can also dismantle the other rights and privileges afforded our residents.' The president took to his social media platform, Truth Social, after the arguments before the Supreme Court. 'The Radical Left SleazeBags, which has no cards remaining in its illegal bag of tricks, is, in a very coordinated manner, PLAYING THE REF with regard to the United States Supreme Court,' he posted. 'They lost the Election in a landslide, and with it, have totally lost their confidence and reason. They are stone cold CRAZY! I hope the Supreme Court doesn't fall for the games they play. The people are with us in bigger numbers than ever before. They want to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!' Trump continued lashing out throughout Friday after the U.S. Supreme Court maintained a block on his deportations under wartime law. The U.S. government is ultimately 'an honor system,' Tong said, constructed of people bound together by belief and commitment to democratic principles. No higher power is going to force Trump to comply with the rule of law, but the country is too diverse and decentralized to be 'swallowed whole' by any one administration, he added 'Be as noisy and chaotic and boisterous as we can be,' he said, 'in every state and every jurisdiction, and make it hard for them every step of the way.' This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
CBS News
07-05-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Should students have phones in school? There are several proposals to ban them in Massachusetts.
In an information age, everything is at your fingertips, but what happens when that access comes at school. There are more than half-a-dozen school cellphone bans proposed on Beacon Hill right now. "We should definitely have it in our locker, but I don't think we should use them," said Veronica Churilove, a middle school student in Watertown. "During school if they start texting to each other that might be a distraction," said Paul Khalarian, a grandfather of a middle school aged student. "Only thing they would need is if they have to get out to call their parents or grandparents to pick them up." "Bell to bell with no cellphones" Of the legislative proposals, one is called The Study Act, and was put forth by Attorney General Andrea Campbell. It has the backing of the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA). "That would require all districts to create a plan that would have bell to bell with no cellphones. Beginning of the day to the end of the day," explained Max Page, MTA President. "We have a number of school districts where they have done this, and from overall, what our members say is that it dramatically changes the school environment." Brockton, Methuen and Lowell are just a few districts on the list. "They range from the full ban all day long, others say that students can have them between classes, they're locked up different ways," said Page. "Districts do it already and they do it even sometimes class to class because they have these pouches they are called, and as the kids come in each day they have to put them in there." Some parents disagree with an outright ban and say it could be a safety issue. Their hope is that any ban comes with caveats. "Any time they are supposed to use it, they should have access to cellphones, but definitely not used during school time," said Victoria Churilove, Veronica's mother.
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Victims rights advocates receive awards
BOSTON (WWLP) – The state's office for Victim Assistance held an awards ceremony on Monday, honoring advocates who have made significant contributions to advancing victims' rights and services. The Bay State's victim assistance services include shelters for domestic violence victims, training for direct service providers, victim compensation, legal assistance, and more. The attorney general explained the importance of victims' rights services, which have been available as a statewide effort since the 1984 enactment of the Victims Bill of Rights. 'We remain focused on the barriers and the challenges that crime victims are impacted by, and continue to work together to ensure that everyone impacted by crime in the commonwealth has access to support,' said Attorney General Andrea Campbell. Representative Kate Hogan received the legislator of the year award for her work in passing a bill preventing sexual abuse by fraud of medical providers in 2024. 'We're all grateful to the many brave survivors, from the athletes in the headlines, to hopeful parents and very vulnerable patients,' said Hogan. Before this law was passed, medical providers could claim that inappropriate actions were part of legitimate treatment plans, leaving victims without a path forward in the courts. Other awardees included a doctor, a detective, and several advocates, all of whom work to support victims of crimes in Massachusetts. WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Boston Globe
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Gun advocates bring wave of challenges to state laws, capitalizing on Supreme Court ruling
Attorney General Andrea Campbell has 'My office will continue to defend them against any challenge in order to keep our communities and our Commonwealth safe,' Campbell said. At the center of the issue is what is known as the Bruen decision, the 2022 Supreme Court case that limited how much discretion police chiefs have in requiring an applicant to show cause as to why they need or should have a license to carry. Gun rights advocates say the Supreme Court has made clear the request is an unlawful intrusion on Second Amendment rights, and they say the state has failed since 2022 to change its laws to reflect the ruling of the nation's highest court. Advertisement 'They still do not regard the Second Amendment as a civil right,' said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Westborough-based GOAL, or the Gun Owners Action League, which is helping coordinate the campaign. 'The attorney general is aggressively defending blatantly unconstitutional laws.' For more than a century before the Bruen decision, Massachusetts had some of the most stringent gun laws in the country. Like similar systems in New York, Hawaii, and several other states, designated licensing authorities had broad discretion to review applications. In Massachusetts, that power belonged to police chiefs, who assessed whether applicants would be a safety risk and asked applicants to demonstrate a 'good reason' to carry before deciding whether to grant a license. But when the New York Pistol and Rifle Association challenged that state's licensing law, the US Supreme Court sided with the gun owners. In a 6-3 decision, the court found there is a constitutional right to carry a handgun outside the home — and set a high bar for when authorities can deny a license — invalidating gun laws in New York, Massachusetts, and other states. State legislators on Beacon Hill quickly responded by modifying the law, removing the 'good reason' requirement but allowing police chiefs to deny licenses if they find 'reliable, articulable and credible information' that a person could be a public danger and is unsuitable to carry a gun. 'We are very committed to trying to protect that [law] as much as possible,' said Ruth Zakarian, executive director of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence. 'Local police departments know a lot about the people in their towns and municipalities. It's that local element and knowing the folks in your community that helps keep people safe.' Advertisement But gun rights advocates saw an opportunity and pounced, filing a series of lawsuits challenging the state's interpretation of the new court ruling, as well as the state's age restrictions for gun owners, 'After Bruen, we have seen a torrent of lawsuits across the country challenging longstanding gun violence prevention laws,' said Billy Clark, senior litigation attorney with the San Francisco-based Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. 'Massachusetts has been no exception.' Second Amendment advocates in Massachusetts argue police chiefs still have too much power to decide the 'suitability' of who can and cannot carry a gun. GOAL said it has sponsored three lawsuits brought by gun owners whose licenses were denied, and another 12 cases have similarly reached the Superior Court level on their own. In several of those cases, District Court judges have agreed with gun owners, finding the 'suitability' standard that police chiefs continue to follow is unconstitutional. The discretion that police chiefs have to deny licenses in Massachusetts is 'anathema to all of the most basic Constitutional norms,' wrote William Smith, a Princeton, Mass.-based Second Amendment attorney. 'Bruen warned that this right is no longer to be treated as a second-class one,' Smith wrote in an email. 'It shocks the conscience that it continues to be so treated.' Advertisement Last May, Holyoke District Court Judge William Hadley ordered the city's Police Department to grant a license to a man it had deemed unsuitable because of years-old drug and domestic violence allegations. In August, a Boston Municipal Court judge cited Bruen and ordered Police Commissioner Michael Cox to grant a license to an East Boston man, who said he needed to carry a gun for his job at a security company but was denied because of a past report of suicidality. That case is now in Suffolk Superior Court, where Campbell's office has filed to defend the law. And in July, a District Court judge ruled that Belchertown Police Chief Kevin Pacunas was 'arbitrary and capricious' when he denied a license to a man who allegedly fired his gun by accident in the bathroom of a Mexican restaurant in Chicopee. The judge also found the state's licensing law unconstitutional. All three of the District Court judges in those cases were nominated by Republican governors — two by Charlie Baker and one by Mitt Romney. Dan Hagan, the Belchertown man's attorney, said his client was granted a license when he lived in South Hadley, but then denied one when he moved to Belchertown — an illustration of the law's vagueness, he said. 'Your constitutional rights are being determined town by town, chief by chief,' Hagan said. 'It's not based on objective standards.' In one post-Bruen case to reach the state Supreme Judicial Court, the court ruled in March that Advertisement 'I still think there is a problem with the discretionary nature of suitability,' said Jason Guida, a Second Amendment lawyer representing a Boston gun owner currently challenging the license law in Superior Court. 'I understand the desire to preserve the status quo for public safety, but when you have a situation where you can make different decisions on the same fact pattern, that's a problem.' Clark, of the Giffords Law Center, said the SJC examined Massachusetts gun law under the Bruen decision while deciding the New Hampshire case and correctly ruled that the state's licensing law was constitutional and set objective standards for applicants. Moreover, the law fits within both Massachusetts and the nation's history of trying to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, he said. 'That's a very basic and commonsense notion that I think most people would understand,' Clark said. Wallace, GOAL's executive director, disagrees and is supporting the new series of challenges. He said that while some gun advocates in Massachusetts celebrated after Bruen, he remained cynical that state officials would afford the Second Amendment its due respect. It would instead be a long, uphill fight, he predicted. 'Those of us who really knew our history said, 'Folks, we're just getting started,'' Wallace said. Dan Glaun can be reached at
