Latest news with #IdahoAttorneyGeneral'sOffice
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Idaho DMV, Star Card texts are scams, state officials warn
Claiming to be from the Idaho DMV, some of the scam texts say your driver's license could be immediately suspended unless you pay — through a suspicious link. (Courtesy of Getty Images) Idaho government officials are warning that text messages about unpaid traffic tickets and the newly required Star Card are scams. Idaho law enforcement agencies never send texts to people to demand payments, threaten penalties for violations or tolls that haven't been paid, or for missed jury duty, the Idaho Attorney General's Office said in a news release. 'Scammers stole over $63 million from Idahoans last year, predominantly targeting our seniors,' Attorney General Raúl Labrador said in a statement. 'These scammers are now using fake DMV texts to steal even more. Idaho families need to know that legitimate government agencies never demand payments through text messages.' Claiming to be from the Idaho DMV, some of the scam texts say your driver's license could be immediately suspended unless you pay — through a suspicious link. The Idaho Attorney General's Office urges Idahoans to look out for red flags, like: Demanding payment urgently — or through gift cards. Threats to suspend licenses, or even arrest. And suspicious web links that might look official. If you receive a suspicious text, do not click any links or share your personal information. Report the text to the Federal Trade Commission, and delete it. The FTC's fraud reporting website is The Idaho Transportation Department is also warning Idahoans about scam texts that falsely promote online payments or quicker access to REAL IDs, also known as Star Cards. 'Scammers are targeting Idahoans with messages that look official but are completely fake,' Idaho DMV Administrator Lisa McClellan said in a statement. 'Your REAL ID can only be obtained in person through an authorized DMV office, not by clicking a link in a text message.' Find accurate information about Idaho services for the DMV and REAL ID online at the Idaho DMV website, at SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Idaho Supreme Court hears arguments in abortion ballot initiative lawsuit
In a packed hearing room, the Idaho Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging state officials' descriptions of an abortion rights ballot initiative on Friday, April 25, 2025. (Kyle Pfannenstiel/Idaho Capital Sun) The Idaho Supreme Court on Friday heard arguments in a lawsuit that alleges state officials drafted biased and misleading information for voters on an abortion rights ballot initiative. Idahoans United for Women and Families, the group behind the ballot initiative, in January sued, alleging ballot titles and financial analysis — developed by state officials for voters to see — are inaccurate. 'Idahoans need clear and concise information about a proposed ballot initiative's fiscal impact and its purpose to decide whether to say yes or no at the ballot box — based on their understanding, and not on confusion,' said Anne Henderson Haws, an attorney with the law firm Holland & Hart, which is representing the abortion ballot initiative group. 'The fiscal impact statement and the ballot titles prepared for the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act fail to meet these standards.' As Idaho Legislature winds down, Republican lawmakers maintain strict abortion bans State agencies defend the descriptions — which use 'fetus viability' in one reference, and say the initiative will marginally raise state expenses. The agencies, which wrote the ballot titles and fiscal analysis, say they comply with state law. 'To the extent there's a gap here, I think the gap between their definition and the term fetal variability is worlds larger than the gap between the term fetal viability and fetus viability,' said Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst, who works for the Idaho Attorney General's Office. 'And if the two terms are not synonymous — like if fetus favors us slightly, and fetal favors them slightly, which we don't concede — then why is it that the one that's in favor wins out, when the statutory standard is you're not supposed to be either in favor or against?' The ballot initiative proposes abortion exemptions to Idaho's strict abortion ban laws for emergencies, fetal viability and other reproductive health protections. The court will issue a decision at a later date. In 2023, the Idaho Supreme Court ordered the Idaho Attorney General's Office to rewrite ballot titles for an unsuccessful election reform ballot initiative, following a lawsuit. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The ballot titles, developed by the Idaho Office of the Attorney General, are brief descriptions of the initiative. The short title doesn't say that the law would allow emergency abortions after viability, Idahoans United spokesperson Melanie Folwell previously told States Newsroom. And the short title uses the term 'fetus viability,' which is not the medical phrase, the initiative group argues. That conflicts with the long title's use of the term 'fetal viability,' the group argues. Justices repeatedly asked Idaho's solicitor general why the attorney general's office used a different term than the initiative's policy. Hurst said the AG's office believes fetal viability and fetus viability are essentially the same term. At one point, Justice Robyn Brody questioned whether the language was meant to evoke the broader abortion debate. Anti-abortion activists often call fetuses unborn children. But abortion-rights activists often frame abortion in terms of medical freedom for pregnant patients. Hurst then referenced news writing standards by the Associated Press, a prominent international news wire outlet, that advise against using the terms 'pro life' and 'pro choice' in news articles. 'There are no neutral options here. To the extent the neutral options are here, its fetus viability — fetal viability,' Hurst replied. 'That's more favorable to their side than to ours. The AG has not used pro life language in this. He has done his utmost to use language that is consistent with the way the initiative frames things.' Justice Cynthia Meyer soon pointed out that the Attorney General's Office's long title uses the term 'life of the unborn child.' The bigger issue is with the fiscal impact statement, Folwell previously told States Newsroom. The fiscal impact statement says the initiative wouldn't affect taxes or the state's general fund, but it says the initiative could minorly affect state expenses — in Medicaid and prisoner populations. CONTACT US 'Passage of this initiative is likely to cost less than $20,000 per year. The Medicaid budget for providing services was about $850 million in FY2024,' the fiscal impact review said. 'If passed, nominal costs in the context of the affected total budget are insignificant to the state.' Initiative organizers argue that's not true. Justice Colleen Zahn pressed an attorney for Idahoans United on how the initiative wouldn't raise costs, since Idaho pays for Medicaid patients who need care from complications from abortion pills. 'There's no evidence that it would increase costs so as to increase any budget that doesn't already exist,' Henderson Haws said. The fiscal analysis was prepared by the Idaho Division of Financial Management, an agency overseen by Idaho Gov. Brad Little. After filing four proposed policies in August, Idahoans United for Women and Families narrowed its focus down to one policy that would establish a fundamental right to contraception and fertility treatments under Idaho law. That would include: in vitro fertilization; making decisions about pregnancy and childbirth; legalizing abortion before fetal viability; and preserving the right to abortion after viability in medical emergencies. Under the proposed initiative, fetal viability would be determined by a physician and what treatment is available. In the medical community, viability is generally considered to be between 23 to 24 weeks of gestational age. Initiative organizers are collecting signatures in the hopes of qualifying the initiative to be considered by Idaho voters in the November 2026 general election. A ballot initiative is a proposed law that Idaho voters can approve or reject — independent of the Idaho Legislature. Only the Legislature can propose constitutional amendments, unlike many other states. To pass, the initiative would require a simple majority support from voters. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Idaho joined a drug price settlement. Find out if you qualify for compensation.
People who purchased generic prescription drugs between May 2009 and December 2019 may be eligible for compensation in the settlement, the Idaho Attorney General's Office said. (Getty Images) Idahoans should see if they're eligible for compensation as part of a proposed settlement over an alleged conspiracy to inflate generic drug prices and limit competition, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said. Idaho is among 50 states and U.S. territories that are seeking preliminary approval for the $39.1 million settlement with drug manufacturer Apotex in federal court in Connecticut, the Idaho Office of the Attorney General announced in a news release. A coalition of states last fall also announced a $10 million settlement with Heritage Pharmaceuticals. 'When companies conspire to fix prices, real people pay the price — especially Idaho families who rely on affordable prescription drugs,' Labrador said in a prepared statement. 'I encourage every Idahoan who purchased generic medications during the covered period to review their eligibility and seek compensation if you qualify. Our office will continue to defend the integrity of the market and ensure Idahoans are protected from corporate misconduct.' People who purchased generic prescription drugs between May 2009 and December 2019 may be eligible for compensation in the settlement, the Idaho Attorney General's Office said. Here's how to find out if you're eligible: Visit which lists generic drugs involved in the settlements Email info@ Call 1-866-290-0182, a toll free number SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Boise-area sheriff criticizes a new Idaho law he says police can't enforce
Ada County Sheriff Matt Clifford on Wednesday criticized a new law that bans the city of Boise from flying Pride flags, saying it was unclear how police could enforce it as written. The law, originally House Bill 96, limits governments to flying certain flags, including the American flag, the Idaho flag, military flags and flags representing government entities. The legislation went into effect April 3, but the city of Boise has kept its Pride flag up, prompting a warning letter from the Idaho Attorney General's Office. Many people also reported the city to the Ada County Sheriff's Office, Clifford said in a statement emailed to the Idaho Statesman. After the public complaints, Clifford asked his legal team to review the new code, he said. But the lawyers found that there are no penalties, no information about what level of crime is involved (misdemeanor or felony, for example) and no explanation as to how an officer would enforce the law, the statement said. 'Without clear direction in the law, no law enforcement in the state of Idaho has the authority to issue citations or make arrests in this situation,' Clifford said. 'This situation highlights the importance of thoughtful collaboration in the legislative process. I strongly urge Idaho legislators to work closely with subject matter experts when drafting legislation to ensure that future statutes are clearly enforceable and contain the necessary legal structure to support their implementation.' Bill sponsor Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, did not immediately return a request for comment. Clifford sent a letter to the city of Boise similar to his public statement. He also indicated that the volume of flag complaints has been burdensome for his department. 'These messages have come in through nearly every channel available to the public — Ada County Dispatch, patrol supervisors, our social media accounts, and our general public inbox,' Clifford said. 'Responding to these concerns has placed a strain on our staff and resources, pulling attention away from other essential duties.' Clifford's message struck a very different tone from Attorney General Raúl Labrador's letter, which said Boise could lose state money if it continues to fly the Pride flag. Labrador also said he had spoken with legislative leaders who said they 'will respond next session with strong enforcement tools.' However, his letter also highlighted the lack of penalties, with Labrador writing that the law 'relied on the good will of elected officials for its enforcement.' 'While we are sorting out the reach and impact of HB 96 — which includes neither definitions nor enforcement mechanisms, we will continue to fly the flags currently on display at City Hall,' Boise spokesperson Emilee Ayers told the Statesman. During this year's legislative session, no one testified or debated about the bill's enforcement mechanisms. However, a couple lawmakers did express concern with the lack of definitions in the bill, such as not defining what a flag is. 'There's always going to be some interpretation of law and we're going to have to say what's a sign and what's a flag. That's the only interpretation that's going to have to be determined,' said the bill's Senate floor sponsor, Sen. Ben Toews, R-Coeur d'Alene, during debate. 'Other than that, it's very definitive.'
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal court rejects longer block on Idaho's transgender bathroom restriction law
Protestors on April 2, 2024, dropped 48,000 handmade hearts — meant to represent LGBTQ Idahoans, in protest of anti-LGBTQ legislation — down the rotunda of the Idaho State Capitol Building. (Kyle Pfannenstiel/Idaho Capital Sun) A federal judge panel rejected a longer legal block on Idaho's law to prevent transgender students from using school facilities that match their gender identity. In its opinion, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected a preliminary injunction for Idaho's law, which was requested in the lawsuit Roe v. Critchfield and could have blocked the law during the litigation. In 2023, Idaho passed the law through Senate Bill 1100. Soon after the bill took effect in July 2023, a then-seventh-grade transgender student and Boise High School's Sexuality and Gender Alliance Club sued. In October 2023, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the law, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported. But the Idaho Attorney General's Office, in a news release, said Thursday's decision by a panel of judges for the federal circuit court revokes that block, allowing Idaho to enforce the law. In a written statement, Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Peter Renn disagreed, saying the court's temporary block on the law remains in effect. 'The appellate court's injunction against S.B. 1100 still remains in effect while the appeal is pending, and the appeal is still currently pending because the appellate court has not yet issued its mandate,' Renn told the Idaho Capital Sun. 'That mandate will not issue for at least 14 days and potentially longer if there are requests for rehearing.' The Idaho Attorney General's Office did not respond to requests for comment from the Sun asking why the office believed the decision allows Idaho to enforce the law. The temporary federal court block came shortly after a lower federal court judge, Judge David C. Nye for the U.S. District Court of Idaho, rejected a request for a preliminary injunction. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX In its opinion released Thursday, written by Judge Morgan Christen, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Nye's decision to reject a preliminary injunction. The opinion stated the lawsuit's plaintiffs were 'unlikely to succeed on the merits' of their objections to the law, including allegations that the law violates the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, federal Title IX law and the right to informational privacy 'by excluding transgender students from facilities matching their gender identity.' 'Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel held that the State identified an important governmental objective — protecting bodily privacy — and that the State chose permissible means to achieve that objective,' the federal court panel ruled. Idaho's law requires public schools to maintain two separate multi-occupancy restrooms, showers, changing facilities and overnight accommodations for students based on their sex assigned at birth. The law forbids people of one sex from entering facilities designated for another sex, with exceptions for cleaning, medical aid, athletic staff and some other circumstances. 'At this state in the litigation, the panel saw no argument that S.B. 1100's mandatory segregation of these facilities on the basis of 'biological sex' is not substantially related to the State's interest in: (1) not exposing students to the unclothed bodies of students of the opposite sex; and (2) protecting students from having to expose their own unclothed bodies to students of the opposite sex,' the federal opinion stated. In May 2024, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the lawsuit, Idaho Reports reported. In a written statement, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador applauded 'the court's decision to allow our State Board of Education to continue its job of preserving each student's privacy, dignity, and safety and providing a quality education for Idaho's children.' 'Idaho's law reflects common sense and biological reality, protecting all students' privacy and safety in spaces like locker rooms and showers,' Labrador wrote. 'Every day, we see more examples of the harms of gender ideology, particularly to women and girls.' Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ+ advocacy law firm representing the plaintiffs, pledged to continue to fight for transgender students' rights. 'This limited ruling is a disappointing but ultimately temporary setback for transgender students across Idaho, who for years have been using school facilities matching their gender identity without incident until Idaho legislators decided to target them for discrimination,' Renn, an attorney with Lambda Legal, said in a written statement. 'Importantly, the court was clear that it was not holding that it would be constitutional to ban transgender students from restrooms, in particular, consistent with their gender identity.' Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian law firm that has agreed to represent Idaho for free in litigation, represented Idaho officials in the case. 'Girls and boys each deserve a private space to shower, undress, use the restroom, and sleep, and they shouldn't have to worry about sharing these spaces with a member of the opposite sex,' the law firm's Senior Counsel Erin Hawley wrote in a statement published by the Idaho Office of the Attorney General. Roe v. Critchfield opinion 3-20-25 SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
