Latest news with #WilliamTong
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Algorithmic Outrage Meets Constitutional Law
Lawmakers aren't wrong to worry about kids and social media — they're just dead wrong about how to fix it. The latest example is Connecticut, which is poised to enact a law allegedly aimed at protecting minors on social media, joining a growing trend among other states — like Ohio, Arkansas and Utah — pushing for sweeping online regulations. However, if passed, the law risks landing in federal court over constitutional concerns. On May 14, the Connecticut House passed H.B. 6857 — a bill that would make it illegal for social media platforms to display algorithmic content to minors unless they first verify the user's age and obtain 'verifiable parental consent.' In other words, any app using personalized feeds — like infinite scroll, suggested videos, or targeted posts — would be forced to screen every user or risk violating state law. The bill also defaults minors to one-hour daily limits, blocks notifications after 9 p.m., and restricts interactions so that only approved contacts can view or respond to their content. Platforms must allow parents to override these limits. It passed the House 121–26 and now awaits action in the Senate. Supporters, including Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, say it's necessary to fight youth 'addiction' to platforms like TikTok, Meta, and Snapchat. AG Tong even likened the proposal to past fights against Big Tobacco and the opioid epidemic — suggesting that endless scrolling is the next fentanyl. But setting aside the melodrama, there's a glaring problem with this policy and it's called the Constitution. However, federal courts are already swatting down similar laws. In April, a U.S. district judge in Ohio blocked the state's Social Media Parental Notification Act, ruling that it infringed both parental rights and minors' First Amendment freedoms. The decision came just weeks after another federal judge in Arkansas permanently struck down that state's Social Media Safety Act — which required age verification and parental consent — on the grounds that it was not narrowly tailored and lacked a compelling government interest. The ruling was simple, '[T]here is no evidence that the Act will be effective in achieving [its] goal.' Utah also tried a similar approach. In 2023, the state passed a pair of laws requiring social media platforms to verify users' ages, obtain parental consent for minors, and impose time-based restrictions on access. But after tech industry group NetChoice filed suit, a federal judge blocked the laws, finding they likely violated the First Amendment. Despite a legislative rewrite in 2024, Utah's revised laws were again put on hold. U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled in September that the regulations were not narrowly tailored and imposed content-based restrictions on speech — a constitutional red flag. The message from the courts is clear, and that is states can't violate civil liberties in the name of protecting children, no matter how well-intentioned the law may be. That should matter to legislators. But in Connecticut — as in many states — the urge to 'do something' often overrides constitutional caution. Ironically, this legislation is being pushed in a state that already passed a sweeping data privacy law just last year. That law, which is still in effect, bans targeted ads to minors, prohibits the sale of their data without consent, limits geolocation tracking, and even requires platforms to exercise 'reasonable care' to shield young users from harm. Now lawmakers want to layer another set of vague, legally risky mandates. If passed, the Connecticut bill would apply to any platform with users in the state — meaning national companies could face costly compliance requirements or lawsuits under the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act, just for showing kids a recommended post. There is also the question of resources. Connecticut's own attorney general has publicly said his office is under-resourced. So, who exactly is going to monitor compliance, enforce reporting requirements, and litigate inevitable First Amendment challenges? Apparently, the same office admitting it's already stretched thin. There are better tools for families — ones that don't require deputizing the government as everyone's digital babysitter. App-store level parental controls already exist. Devices can be set to limit access, and many platforms offer family management features. Empowering parents doesn't require disempowering everyone else. Bills like this aren't about safety. They're about signaling. Lawmakers want to appear 'tough on tech' — even if it means trampling constitutional rights and bogging down courts in litigation that will almost certainly end in defeat. For now, the bill sits on the Connecticut Senate calendar, waiting for a vote. If passed, it won't just regulate platforms. It will test the boundaries of what the government can dictate in the name of protecting children. Let's hope the courts keep doing what the legislature refuses to: draw a aren't wrong to worry about kids and social media — they're just dead wrong about how to fix it. The latest example is Connecticut, which is poised to enact a law allegedly aimed at protecting minors on social media, joining a growing trend among other states — like Ohio, Arkansas and Utah — pushing for sweeping online regulations. However, if passed, the law risks landing in federal court over constitutional concerns. On May 14, the Connecticut House passed H.B. 6857 — a bill that would make it illegal for social media platforms to display algorithmic content to minors unless they first verify the user's age and obtain 'verifiable parental consent.' In other words, any app using personalized feeds — like infinite scroll, suggested videos, or targeted posts — would be forced to screen every user or risk violating state law. The bill also defaults minors to one-hour daily limits, blocks notifications after 9 p.m., and restricts interactions so that only approved contacts can view or respond to their content. Platforms must allow parents to override these limits. It passed the House 121–26 and now awaits action in the Senate. Supporters, including Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, say it's necessary to fight youth 'addiction' to platforms like TikTok, Meta, and Snapchat. AG Tong even likened the proposal to past fights against Big Tobacco and the opioid epidemic — suggesting that endless scrolling is the next fentanyl. But setting aside the melodrama, there's a glaring problem with this policy and it's called the Constitution. However, federal courts are already swatting down similar laws. In April, a U.S. district judge in Ohio blocked the state's Social Media Parental Notification Act, ruling that it infringed both parental rights and minors' First Amendment freedoms. The decision came just weeks after another federal judge in Arkansas permanently struck down that state's Social Media Safety Act — which required age verification and parental consent — on the grounds that it was not narrowly tailored and lacked a compelling government interest. The ruling was simple, '[T]here is no evidence that the Act will be effective in achieving [its] goal.' Utah also tried a similar approach. In 2023, the state passed a pair of laws requiring social media platforms to verify users' ages, obtain parental consent for minors, and impose time-based restrictions on access. But after tech industry group NetChoice filed suit, a federal judge blocked the laws, finding they likely violated the First Amendment. Despite a legislative rewrite in 2024, Utah's revised laws were again put on hold. U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled in September that the regulations were not narrowly tailored and imposed content-based restrictions on speech — a constitutional red flag. The message from the courts is clear, and that is states can't violate civil liberties in the name of protecting children, no matter how well-intentioned the law may be. That should matter to legislators. But in Connecticut — as in many states — the urge to 'do something' often overrides constitutional caution. Ironically, this legislation is being pushed in a state that already passed a sweeping data privacy law just last year. That law, which is still in effect, bans targeted ads to minors, prohibits the sale of their data without consent, limits geolocation tracking, and even requires platforms to exercise 'reasonable care' to shield young users from harm. Now lawmakers want to layer another set of vague, legally risky mandates. If passed, the Connecticut bill would apply to any platform with users in the state — meaning national companies could face costly compliance requirements or lawsuits under the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act, just for showing kids a recommended post. There is also the question of resources. Connecticut's own attorney general has publicly said his office is under-resourced. So, who exactly is going to monitor compliance, enforce reporting requirements, and litigate inevitable First Amendment challenges? Apparently, the same office admitting it's already stretched thin. There are better tools for families — ones that don't require deputizing the government as everyone's digital babysitter. App-store level parental controls already exist. Devices can be set to limit access, and many platforms offer family management features. Empowering parents doesn't require disempowering everyone else. Bills like this aren't about safety. They're about signaling. Lawmakers want to appear 'tough on tech' — even if it means trampling constitutional rights and bogging down courts in litigation that will almost certainly end in defeat. For now, the bill sits on the Connecticut Senate calendar, waiting for a vote. If passed, it won't just regulate platforms. It will test the boundaries of what the government can dictate in the name of protecting children. Let's hope the courts keep doing what the legislature refuses to: draw a line. Meghan Portfolio is the Manager of Research and Analysis at Yankee Institute.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Trump administration names Connecticut, 6 municipalities as ‘sanctuary jurisdictions'
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (WTNH) — The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a list of 'sanctuary jurisdictions defying federal immigration law' on Thursday. Trump administration increases pressure on 'sanctuary jurisdictions' with public listing The state of Connecticut and six cities and towns were listed as 'deliberately and shamefully obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws endangering American communities,' according to the Trump administration. The six municipalities in Connecticut that are on the list are: East Haven Hamden Hartford New Haven New London Windham Every jurisdiction listed will be notified of its 'non-compliance and all potential violations of federal criminal statutes.' 'These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens,' DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said. 'We are exposing these sanctuary politicians who harbor criminal illegal aliens and defy federal law. President Trump and I will always put the safety of the American people first. Sanctuary politicians are on notice: comply with federal law.' The DHS stated that it demands the states, counties, and municipalities listed to immediately revise their policies to align with federal immigration laws. This comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order in April directing the DHS and the U.S. Department of Justice to 'identify and publicly highlight jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.' 'Note that the list can be reviewed and changed at any time and will be updated regularly,' the Trump administration said. 'No one should act on this information without conducting their own evaluation of the information.' Attorney General William Tong said the Trump administration 'falsely' labeled Connecticut a 'sanctuary jurisdiction.' There is nothing in our laws or statutes that says Connecticut is a 'sanctuary' state. We are not. That is a meaningless term. It is the policy of the State of Connecticut to respect, honor and protect immigrants and immigrant families in compliance with the law. Trump's own administration certified Connecticut's compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 in 2017. Nothing has changed to alter that certification, other than Trump's unhinged fixation on defunding and commandeering our police. We sued the last time Trump attempted to defund our law enforcement, and we are prepared to defend Connecticut funding and public safety. Attorney General William Tong Hartford Mayor Arunan Arulampalam, a Democrat, issued the following statement. Hartford is a diverse and welcoming city, and we take pride in the vibrant community we've built. We have made community safety our top priority, and thanks to the hard work of our residents and local partners, Hartford is now the safest it has been in decades. As mayor, I am committed to building on this progress by ensuring that every resident, regardless of where they come from or what their story is, has the opportunity to succeed. While my administration remains laser-focused on real solutions that protect our community, it is clear that current federal policies do not share this commitment to safety and threaten to undermine the gains we have made. In Hartford, safety, unity, and opportunity are not just ideals — they are realities we are achieving together. Hartford Mayor Arunan Arulampalam New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker, also a Democrat, will hold a 1 p.m. news conference on Friday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Eastern graduate division confers 100 master's degrees
WILLIMANTIC — Eastern Connecticut State University celebrated graduation with nearly 100 master's degree students at its Graduate Division Commencement at the Fine Arts Instructional Center Concert Hall. Degree recipients were given remarks from Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and were ceremonially hooded as they walked across the stage. The degrees received were in accounting, education (early childhood, elementary and secondary education), management, applied data science, special education and educational studies/technology. The ages of the graduates ranged from 21 to 72. Tong was the recipient of Eastern's inaugural Distinguished Public Service Award. In his address, Tong discussed the motivation behind his career. 'The reason why I do this work is because I know there are a lot of 'nobodies' in this world,' he said. He then went on to refer to himself as a 'nobody' when referencing his upbringing. Tong grew up the son of Chinese immigrants and worked in his parents' Chinese restaurant in Wethersfield. 'There are a lot of people who feel invisible,' Tong said. 'I want to help them because I know what they're going through.' Tong told his story as a call to action for the graduates: 'See the people who don't look exactly like you; they're your people too. Remember who you really are, recognize who your people are, and fight for them.' Eastern President Karim Ismaili who for the first time at Eastern's graduation, delivered the congratulatory remarks. 'Earning a graduate degree is a tremendous achievement, one that requires discipline, perseverance, and an unwavering commitment to your goals,' Ismaili said. 'You embody the spirit of Eastern: purposeful, thoughtful, and ready to serve.' Shellena Pitterson, a graduating member of the class and a drafter for facilities management and planning at Eastern, delivered the graduate student address. 'Grad school is like a rollercoaster: exciting at first, terrifying in the middle, and by the end, you're just holding on for dear life,' Pitterson said. 'We've navigated assignments, exams, late nights and let's be honest-the occasional existential crisis.'
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Private equity created a ‘nightmare' in CT hospitals, staff say. Lawmakers seek to prevent a recurrence
Connecticut lawmakers and officials are seeking through several proposed bills to restrict private equity's role in Connecticut hospitals. But there are differences of opinion of how far regulations should go. 'We've all seen what can go wrong when private equity is allowed to strip mine our local hospitals and health care institutions,' said Attorney General William Tong. 'And we've seen growing challenges with access and affordability of care due to unprecedented levels of consolidation in health care delivery in Connecticut.' Tong added, 'there is no question that Connecticut can and should strengthen oversight and transparency around these transactions and acquisitions.' Gov. Ned Lamont said in an email that the state needs to have a role in overseeing large financial transactions involving health care practices and facilities 'to ensure the crucial services these facilities provide continue to be readily available for our residents.' The governor said there has been a real change in how the health care system is being operated with an increased share owned or managed by out-of-state, for-profit companies. 'By updating our laws, we can enable the state to have proper oversight of significant health system transactions and ensure that our systems continue to provide quality, accessible, and affordable health care for all,' the governor said. Sen. Saud Anwar, Senate chairman of the Public Health Committee, adamantly wants to restrict private equity firms from buying hospitals in the state. Under one bill, private equity could hold only a minority role in the outpatient setting, an arrangement which would require a management agreement with medical groups. 'I think passing these bills is the responsible thing to do under the current circumstances where we have three hospitals that have been bankrupted by private equity and also the infrastructure of radiology services in the state of Connecticut has been harmed by private equity,' Anwar said. 'So much more harm to our patients has happened through private equity takeover of health care entities.' The impact of private equity in health care has been on display in Connecticut recently as Prospect Medical Holdings, a private equity company, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy this past January. An investigation of the United States Senate Committee on the Budget conducted last year that included Prospect found that private equity in health care prioritized profits over patient care. Prospect, which operates Manchester Memorial, Rockville General and Waterbury Hospital, has faced fiscal challenges in many of its hospitals in the state, from delayed payments to physicians and vendors to a shortage of health care providers. Private equity regulation There are currently four bills regarding private equity up for consideration by the state legislature. SB 1507 prohibits private equity companies and real estate investment trusts from acquiring or increasing direct or indirect ownership interest in or operational or financial control over a hospital or health system, according to the bill's analysis. The analysis states that the bill also requires the Office of Health Strategy to evaluate whether the attorney general should be allowed to petition the Superior Court to appoint a receiver to manage hospitals in financial distress or operational crisis. HB 6873, the governor's bill, which focuses on the strengthening of the review of health care entity transactions, would expand the list of transactions that require prior notice to the attorney general, according to the bill's analysis. It requires parties to give notice for a material change transaction or a series of them over a five-year period involving a health care entity with total assets or annual revenues or anticipated annual revenues of $10 million or more, the analysis states. This notice is required for private equity entities, but not venture capital firms exclusively funding start-ups or other early-stage businesses, the analysis further explains. Material change transactions include a corporate merger, the acquisition of 20% or more of an entity's assets or operations or the formation of certain types of entities such as a management services organization for the purpose of administering contracts with providers, carriers or certain others, according to the bill's analysis. 'We have an opportunity to have a look at some of the transactions which could result in the challenges with monopoly of the market,' Anwar said. 'We need to look at some of those aspects. Also a part of the bill is the restriction of insurance companies to own practices.' Other bills related to private equity include HB 7050 and SB 1539, which refer to the modification of the state's Certificate of Need program for health care entities. Those programs are administered by the Office of Health Strategy and Health Systems Planning Unit. HB 7050 would allow the HSPU to implement an expedited CON review process for applications for services, facilities or equipment that address an unmet need in the applicant's geographic area, according to the bill's analysis. SB 1539 also requires CON approval if a private equity company acquires a controlling interest in a health care facility, the analysis states. Anwar cites one important aspect of the bill which prohibits the HSPU from granting a request for intervenor status in any public hearing for a group practice's CON application. 'If some small group practice is going to open we don't want intervenor status for large hospitals,' he said. 'That is reducing opportunities for entrepreneurship because we are seeing clinicians leave our state.' Prospect The call to restrict private equity is in response to the effect of Prospect Medical Holding's impact on its three hospitals, leaving state officials raising concerns about profits being maximized over patient care. The state Office of Health Strategy's latest Annual Report on the Financial Status of Connecticut's Short Term Acute Hospitals found that Prospect lost $86.4 million in Fiscal year 2023. In 2022, Yale New Haven Health agreed in a tentative agreement to purchase Prospect's three hospitals for $435 million but that deal has been bogged down in lawsuits and Yale recently said the deal was no longer possible due to 'mismanagement.' Meanwhile, bids are open for all three hospitals with a deadline of May 18. In the meantime, nurses and unions at several of Prospect's hospitals in the state have told the Courant that their hospitals have been decimated, with some worried about the quality of care as they wait for a new owner to purchase the hospitals. Ed Gadomski, Connecticut Healthcare Associates Internal Union Organizer, who represents the nurses and technicians at Waterbury Hospital, says almost all of its departments are understaffed with nursing-to-patient ratios well over the appropriate levels set by the Hospital Staffing Committee, which he has filed a complaint with the Department of Public Health that the hospital is violating the Hospital Staffing Law. He has yet to hear from DPH on the matter, he said. He added that antiquated supplies are used to treat patients and the Operating Room has a 50% vacancy rate. 'If they bring in another private equity owner, I believe there will be a mass exodus of staff because no one is going to stick around for a second nightmare,' Gadomski told the Courant. 'Private equity in our eyes are all the same. They prioritize profits over patient care.' Gadomski said due to the understaffing it raises the risk of medical errors occurring, a major concern that is often on the forefront of his mind. Zirui Song, associate professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, said staffing cuts have been a common strategy after private equity acquisition of acute care hospitals. 'We believe from the academic standpoint, one of the primary explanations behind the findings of increased patient harm and increased transfer of patients to other hospitals and the reduced capacity to deliver care on the front line is the staffing cuts,' he said. In an article in JAMA collaborating with several other doctors, Song found that based on an observation of 10,091 hospitalizations, 'Medicare beneficiaries admitted to private equity hospitals experienced a 25.4% increase in hospital-acquired conditions compared with those treated at control hospitals.' The article found there was also a 27.3% increase in falls and a 37.7% increase in central-line bloodstream infections at private equity hospitals. 'On balance the evidence on private equity acquisitions of hospitals to date shows that these acquisitions are associated with increased hospital profitability, increased hospital charges, increased preventable patient harm and reductions in staffing,' Song told the Courant. Sale leaseback agreements Rep. Matt Blumenthal, D-Stamford, co-chair of the Government Administration and Elections Committee has also raised concerns about private equity, with the Government Administration and Elections Committee passing a bill that would ban the licensing of health care entities that have engaged in sale leaseback transactions involving a hospital. Anwar said he expects to include language from that bill in the final bills on private equity. In 2018, Prospect, then majority-owned by private equity firm Leonard Green & Partners, took out a $1.1 billion loan to fund a $457 million dividend for its executives and investors, the CT Mirror reported. The following year, to pay for the loan, Prospect sold the land and buildings from hospitals it owns in Connecticut, California and Pennsylvania to Medical Properties Trust for $1.4 billion, then leased back those hospitals from the trust, CBS News reported as cited by the CT Mirror. Medical Properties Trust, a publicly traded real estate investment trust, or REIT, has built a $19 billion business on transactions like the one with Prospect, known as 'sale-leasebacks,' the CT Mirror reported. 'I do not think there is any conceivable way that any sale leaseback transaction could benefit the provision of health care in a hospital setting,' said Blumenthal. 'The only possible effect of the transaction is to load up the health care owner with debt to extract profit from the hospital at the hospital's expense.' Massachusetts passed a law in 2024 that restricts the main campus of a hospital from being sold to a real estate investment trust. Restricting private equity Business owners and corporations have concerns about the complete restriction of private equity in health care. While the Connecticut Hospital Association said in a statement that 'unregulated private equity has led to negative outcomes in the state' it also cautioned that any 'solution should avoid unintended consequences, such as discouraging modest yet important investments that can support and sustain health care delivery in Connecticut.' Dr. Joe Cappa, a board certified gastroenterologist, wrote in his testimony in opposition to SB 1507 that the bill 'poses an existential threat to the continued existence of independent practices like mine.' 'The moratorium on future investment would ultimately lead to independent practices like mine selling to hospitals,' he said. 'This is the exact opposite of what the state needs.' Amanda Gunthel, president of the Connecticut Association of Ambulatory Surgery Centers, wrote in her testimony against SB 1507 that the bill 'could make it incredibly challenging to respond to the tightened credit markets and high interest rates that continue to negatively impact the health care industry.' Anwar said he expects the bills to come before the legislature in the next two weeks. The CT Mirror contributed to this report.
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
