The assault on parental rights continues, this time from Sen. Cathy Giessel, a registered Republican and someone who just a few years ago presented herself as something of a conservative.
That presentation should most certainly no longer fool anyone as the Anchorage senator’s journey to the dark side is now complete; her latest tactic puts on full display her alignment with those who feel parents are secondary to public school officials.
Senate Bill 240 was a simple, straightforward bill presented by Gov. Mike Dunleavy to allow Medicaid-eligible students with disabilities to access medical services through their schools. Sen. David Wilson of Wasilla helped carry the bill on behalf of the governor, but Sen. Giessel then amended the bill into something it was not meant to be, causing Sen. Wilson to pull his support.
The amended bill allows for 16-year-old students to authorize for themselves counseling services without notification being made to their parents, continuing a trend that excludes parents from not only making important health decisions in their children’s lives but from even knowing about those decisions. This is a dangerous path of subjugating parental rights and responsibilities to government entities.
Today’s youth are, for various reasons, a fragile lot. Mental health issues are ubiquitous, and counseling and therapy sessions are as normal as routine physicals used to be, if not more so.
But there are other elements at play. The explosion of gender-related interests among young people – including the exploration and encouragement of non-traditional sex roles, as well as transition therapy – has made it trendy for young people to identify on an ever expanding spectrum of sexual identities.
And now, the substituted language in SB240 kicks open the door to allow minors (teenagers, but still minors) to obtain mental health counseling without parental consent, and that open door reveals all those gender-bending issues so popular among today’s youth.
This rewritten bill has almost no resemblance to the governor’s intent, and it is a glaring example of how easily good intentions can be misused by a politician determined to further an agenda of bad intentions. It’s also a great example of why people are frustrated by political process and why that frustration has led to disinterest and disengagement from the process. The problem is that there are elected officials who fully understand that apathy and use it to their advantage.
Children’s health decisions should not be kept from parents, even – especially – when those health decisions are mental health related. This trend that gives government institutions, such as public schools, more rights over children than the children’s parents must stop. Families should make these important decisions, not public school officials or mental health counselors.
The initial vote on the version being adopted as the substitute bill was opposed by the microcaucus of Sen. Shelley Hughes, Sen. Robb Myers, and Sen. Mike Shower, but also Senators Jesse Bjorkman, James Kaufman, Kelly Merrick, and David Wilson. The final vote is on the Senate floor tomorrow, Wednesday, April 24.
Tim Barto is a regular contributor to Must Read Alaska and vice president of Alaska Family Council, which is committed to preserving parents’ rights in an age of ever encroaching government control.
On Tuesday, 25 Republican governors issued a statement calling on President Joe Biden to lift his obstruction against liquified natural gas (LNG) export approvals, as it is creating uncertainty and hurting U.S. allies.
All but two of the 27 Republican governors signed the statement. None of the 23 Democrats holding the office of governor signed on.
The governors stated:
“As governors, we are very concerned by the Biden Administration’s move to pause approvals of new liquified natural gas (LNG) export projects, especially after Iran’s attack on Israel last week. The U.S. is the world’s leading exporter of LNG, and the decision to pause new approvals undermines our economic and national security, and the security of our allies.
“It creates instability and threatens future energy security throughout the world at a time when our allies need us the most. It sends a message that the U.S. is not a reliable energy partner.
“We call on the Biden Administration to reverse course and lift the pause, allowing America to retain its global energy advantage ensuring Americans and our allies abroad have access to a steady supply of affordable energy.”
The signatories include: Governor Kay Ivey (AL), Governor Mike Dunleavy (AK), Governor Sarah Sanders (AR), Governor Ron DeSantis (FL), Governor Brian Kemp (GA), Governor Brad Little (ID), Governor Eric Holcomb (IN), Governor Kim Reynolds (IA), Governor Jeff Landry (LA), Governor Tate Reeves (MS), Governor Mike Parson (MO), Governor Greg Gianforte (MT), Governor Jim Pillen (NE), Governor Chris Sununu (NH), Governor Doug Burgum (ND), Governor Kevin Stitt (OK), Governor Mike DeWine (OH), Governor Henry McMaster (SC), Governor Kristi Noem (SD), Governor Bill Lee (TN), Governor Greg Abbott (TX), Governor Spencer Cox (UT), Governor Glenn Youngkin (VA), Governor Jim Justice (WV), and Governor Mark Gordon (WY).
Republican Governors Joe Lombardo (NV) and Phil Scott (VT) did not sign the statement.
Senate Bill 240 started out as a legislative way to ensure that disabled students can get the help they need at school, and that Medicaid will be able to pay for some of the services. It was Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s bill to clean up some processes in the technical world of federal reimbursements.
But by the time Sen. Cathy Giessel of South Anchorage finished with the bill, it had been completely rewritten. Now, the committee substitute for the bill makes it into a law saying that 16-year-olds can get counseling and clinical services at school without their parents’ knowledge. In other words, counselors can do traditional counseling work or even gender-transition counseling within the high school framework, and hide that work from parents.
The completely rewritten bill passed out of committee on a vote of 3-2, with its Senate Sponsor, Sen. David Wilson firmly against the changes.
The committee substitute passed the Senate floor, again with Wilson opposed to the amendments to the bill, and with Sen. Shelley Hughes arguing against the changes on the Senate floor. But the committee substitute, as authored by Giessel and passed by her committee, was adopted by the Senate, 13-7.
The vote to accept the complete rewrite of the governor’s health billing bill passed and will be voted on during the Senate floor session on April 24.
On Wednesday, the rewrite will be up for a final vote in the Senate.
The original version said that school-based services for students with disabilities could be paid for by Medicaid, with or without an individualized education program, also known as IEP. It is explained in the governor’s sponsor statement:
The new version of the bill eclipses the original intent. Sen. Giessel wants school personnel to be able to recommend behavioral health or mental health services to a child who is 16 or older, and that child would be considered adult enough to consent to those services without their parents’ knowledge. For example:
“Insert ‘allowing minors 16 years of age or older to consent to behavioral health and mental health services; authorizing school personnel to recommend a behavioral health or mental health professional to a child 16 years of age or older;'” the bill reads now.
It also says, “Notwithstanding AS 14.30.l7l (a)(3) and (S), a behavioral or mental health professional working within a public school system may, in compliance with federal health professional … (1) recommend, but not require, a psychiatric or behavioral health evaluation of a child; AND recommend, but not require, psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral treatment for a child; and obtain informed consent from and provide behavioral or mental health services to a child who is 16 years of age or older.”
The bill goes on to say that minors can give consent for medical or dental services if the parent or legal guardian cannot be contacted or if the parent or legal guardian is unwilling to grant consent.
The bill says the medical provider at the school shall counsel the minor “keeping in mind not only the valid interests of the minor but also the valid interests of the parent or guardian and the family unit as best the provider presumes them.”
It continues to say that the minor can give consent to receive outpatient behavioral or mental health services, but that such services to not include the prescribing of medication to the minor without a parent or guardian’s consent. The bill says the mental health provider shall contact the parents and offer to provide services to the family unless there “are clear clinical indications that doing so would be harmful to the minor receiving such services.”
The entire amendment that has transformed the bill now allows not only counseling but, although not explicitly saying so, allows gender transition counseling.
The original bill had the support of those in the health field. They offered letters explaining why.
The Alaska Hospital and Healthcare Association wrote, “AHHA is pleased to offer our support for SB 240 and its removal of the requirement that Medicaid can only reimburse for school-based services if the student has a disability and the services are included in the student’s Individualized Education Plan.”
The association continued, “We view this change as a means of increasing flexibility for schools to seek Medicaid reimbursement for eligible students and extending this coverage to all Medicaid eligible students. This bill matters to Alaskans because it will increase healthcare access and improve child health outcomes. Additionally, schools will be able to fund health-related services like school nurses. AHHA urges the passage of SB 240 to better align with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and support access to services within schools for Medicaid eligible children.”
The new Senate bill, however, has AHHA on record supporting the counseling and possible gender transition of high school students without their parents consent — something that AHHA might not have wanted to sign onto.
The Alaska Behavioral Health Association also signed on to support the original version of the bill, but is now on record supporting what is an entirely different bill.
The ABHA wrote, “Alaska Behavioral Health is pleased to offer support for SB 240 and HB 343. These bills align with our organization’s priorities to increase access to health care services for children and will increase flexibility for schools to seek Medicaid reimbursement for eligible children.
“Currently, for Medicaid to cover services provided in schools, the child must have a disability and the services must be included in the child’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Currently, some children lose supportive services when they age out of infant learning programs because they do not meet the requirements for an IEP, though they still have needs that can be met in a school setting. These bills remove those current requirements. In doing so, they present an opportunity for schools to seek Medicaid reimbursement for services provided on site. They will promote early intervention and prevention, and they will promote more convenient choices for parents seeking the care their children need.”
The original bill supported parent-directed services provided in the school setting, maintained the current scope of school-based services, preserved parent choice in children’s care, including what services they receive and where they receive them. Read the original bill explanation and summary here.
But with the radical changes to the bill, parents are cut out of the equation.
The ABHA is now on record as supporting a bill that has gone from being a technical fix to a permission slip for school counselors, who may or may not share the values of the family, to have extraordinary influence over the decisions of youth during a time of their lives when they are most impressionable.
Editor’s note: This opinion column first ran in the Wall Street Journal.
We are living in one of the most dangerous times since World War II, as Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran attempt to undermine the free world. Yet rather than maximize our nation’s strengths and weaken our adversaries, the Biden administration is doing the opposite.
Consider its policy on Iran. Under sanctions pressure from the Trump administration, Iranian oil exports in 2020 were at about 200,000 barrels a day, leaving Tehran with about $4 billion in foreign reserves, a small pool relative to the country’s size.
In an effort to appease the mullahs, however, the Biden administration hasn’t enforced comprehensive sanctions since 2021. As a result, Iranian oil exports today are at nearly 1.6 million barrels a day and its regime has been enriched by more than $70 billion. Iran uses this windfall in part to fund its terrorist proxies, including the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah. Iranian oil development also allows the regime to deepen its ties with China, which buys about 80% of Iran’s oil exports.
Meantime the Biden administration is doing the reverse at home—weakening America’s domestic energy production by restricting development on two important sites, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and Alaska’s Ambler Mining District.
These measures are suicidal—and lawless. In 1980 Congress directed the interior secretary to “conduct an expeditious program of competitive leasing” in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The Biden administration is dramatically reinterpreting this law so it can treat those 13 million acres it is locking up as de facto federal wilderness.
The decision, ironically, ignores the desires of many in the Alaska Native community. Elected indigenous leaders from the North Slope of Alaska eight times have requested a meeting with Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to express their opposition to the administration’s new rule. Each time, they’ve been denied. It seems that the Biden administration listens to people of color and indigenous communities only if they align with the administration’s extreme antidevelopment policies.
Orin Seybert, founder, owner, and operator of Peninsula Airways took “his final flight west,” on Friday. He was 87 when he passed.
Seybert was a pioneer in developing the infrastructure and modern aviation transportation framework in Alaska today.
In 1955, Seybert started Pen Air in his home at Pilot Point, beginning with a 1946 Taylorcraft. Penair grew into the largest regional air carrier in the state and was in operation for 65 years. Penair began as a means for transporting local residents to hospitals for care that was unavailable in their communities.
“Orin was a true public servant in his service to his fellow Alaskans,” his family wrote.
Orin was a recipient of the Wright Brothers’ Master Pilot award as well as an inductee of the Alaska Aviation Hall of Fame, among many other accolades.
“He was a respected pilot and businessman who was lucky enough to find his true passion in aviation. He was known as the finest Grumman pilot in the world, and flew his widgeon to all parts of Alaska often times being the only airplane to fly into some of the most remote parts of Alaska. He truly was a legend,” his family said in a statement this weekend.
Later in life, Seybert had a personal passion for the Alaska Aviation Museum to succeed and took pride in helping it achieve growth. The museum showcases an important and unique side of Alaska’s history and development as a state.
“Orin left a tremendous impact on it. Orin was a great historian, who shared many stories, pieces of history, and aviation lore with the museum for preservation,” the family wrote.
“Orin was first and foremost a proud husband, father, brother, and grandfather to over 66 direct family members. He often laughingly joked at family events, ‘I am responsible for this mess.'”
He is preceded in death by his wife of 40 years, Jennie; and his children Andrew, Cecilia; brother Darryl, and mother Clarice.
The U.S. Senate is expected to ratify $95 billion in foreign aid after the House over the weekend passed major funding for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan as well as a measure forcing Chinese-owned share of TikTok to be sold or the app will be banned in the U.S.
U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., pulled off the feat, but now he faces the fallout from his own party that could cost him his speakership.
The spending plan allotted about $61 billion for Ukraine, about $8 billion meant to bolster Taiwan and the surrounding region mostly from Chinese aggression, as well as about $26.4 billion for Israel, which is at war with terrorist group Hamas and has exchanged fire with Iran.
With every vote, Republican opposition to the Ukraine funding has grown louder, with many pointing out the southern border crisis goes unaddressed even as Ukraine gets more funding.
“Speaker Johnson proved today that the only border he cares about is Ukraine’s,” U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green, R-Ga., wrote on X, formerly Twitter, over the weekend.
Green has filed a motion to oust Johnson from the speakership.
“Those who voted to fund Ukraine’s borders instead of America’s KNEW for certainty that the separate (unattached to Ukraine) border security was going to die in the Senate, and are now dying for cover – so they’re casting blame,” Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, wrote on X. “Own it.”
Johnson said he cannot do his job while worrying about a motion to vacate, and some Democrats have suggested they would vote to save Johnson in the speakership, according to media reports.
“I’ve done what I believe to be the right thing…” Johnson told reporters.
Green told Fox News over the weekend that if Johnson doesn’t resign he will be vacated, but it’s unclear if she will make good on that threat.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., has joined Green’s effort to vacate, but he also has called on Johnson to resign so that the motion will not have to be filed.
“This is the U.S. House of Representatives under the direction of Speaker Mike Johnson,” Massie said on X alongside a video clip of Democrats waving Ukrainian flags on the House floor. “Democrats are celebrating his total capitulation with no victory for securing our border.”
Massie also said “Democrats run” Johnson.
Johnson received praise from President Joe Biden after the vote and is expected to sign off on the spending if it makes it to his desk.
“I want to thank Speaker Johnson, Leader Jeffries, and the bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in the House who voted to put our national security first,” Biden said in a statement over the weekend. “I urge the Senate to quickly send this package to my desk so that I can sign it into law and we can quickly send weapons and equipment to Ukraine to meet their urgent battlefield needs.”
Frankly, I am surprised it took this long. On April 12, Superior Court Judge Adolf Zeman ruled that Alaska’s entire correspondence school program, currently educating over 24,000 children, is unconstitutional and must be thrown out entirely. The law, House Bill 278, was enacted in 2013. It took 10 years to mount an attack – a slow roll indeed.
I am not a legal expert and can’t predict how this plays out in the courts. That is for the highly competent lawyers and analysts who are surely pouring over this ruling right now and writing up their own articles. No, I must content myself with a plain, direct understanding of everyday human language.
The ruling hinges on one line in the Alaska Constitution: Article VII, Section 1 of the Alaska State Constitution which states: “… No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.”
It appears that this line was flagged in 2013 and 2014 as problematic for HB 278 and would need “fixing,” but it never was. To me, a lot of interpretations of the words “direct” and “benefit” should be discussed. For example, the direct beneficiary of these public funds could be interpreted as the child getting a quality education, but that’s just my take.
If one had a hostile view of school choice and homeschooling, one could conceivably interpret that sentence as Judge Zeman has interpreted it and throw out the whole system – an outcome even the plaintiffs appeared to recoil from.
But again, I am not a legal expert, and that side of the debate will be ‘front and center’ in the coming months or years.
What I am an expert on (expertise gained empirically, as my grandfather would chuckle) is the public debate that is about to erupt. You can’t throw 24,000 children’s educational foundation down the nearest drain without causing a ripple – the school choice debate is about to break wide open in Alaska. You are about to see editorials, opinions, articles, and the filth that is the comment section of any online platformed source. We will likely see some national coverage, with talking heads shouting from both sides of the aisle, who will all work themselves up, and … well, we know how it goes from there and it won’t be pretty.
This won’t just be a discussion about allotments. To fix this, if it is upheld on appeal, will likely require some sort of Alaska Constitutional remedy. Barring that, possibly legislative implementation language that supersedes judicial parsing of original intent would be in order. And that means that not only will allotments be on the table, but the entire school choice/homeschooling policy of Alaska. Everything is about to become fair game.
So, how should homeschool advocates approach this? I may not have the whole campaign plan, but I have a starting suggestion. Let’s refuse to answer the one question we love to talk about. The one question that drives the heart of every school choice/homeschooler out there. That one question that everybody around us is sick of hearing us rant about. The one question that will be used to separate, divide, and conquer us individually.
That one question: “Why do you homeschool?”
Don’t answer that question. Not in the comments section of social media, not to news reporters, not in articles, not in blogs.
Do. Not. Answer. That. Question!
Why? Because when we start answering why we homeschool, we are giving our opponents the key to dividing us. Maybe one parent lives off-grid and there is no public school available. Our opponents answer: “Fine, we can force students who live within X-distance from a school to attend. Now prove to us where you live and why you can’t get to a public school. If we agree on a plan, fill out this application in triplicate and we’ll proceed with losing your paperwork and … bureaucracy takes over!”
Maybe a parent is concerned with preserving their child’s cultural heritage? Their answer: “Great! We can give people with approved heritages permission to homeschool and the rest can enroll where we tell them to go.”
Maybe a parent has a moral, ethical, or philosophical reason. Their answer: “Sorry, doesn’t fly. But the rest have ‘our’ permission”.
When we start communicating our reasons, we are seeking justification–giving other people permission to agree or disagree with our reasons. And that agreement / disagreement will be used to split us, divide us, mold and shape us.
We have a right to homeschool, enshrined in the Alaskan constitution. Acknowledged in multiple U.S. Supreme Court cases (Meyer v. Nebraska and Farrington v. Tokushige, for example), we don’t need a ‘reason’ and we don’t need anybody to agree with our “reason.” Do not give your reasons, whatever they may be.
Agent Smith of the Matrix kept asking: “Neo, why do you persist?” Any answer would have been attacked, ridiculed, logic-ed away.
Why do I homeschool? Because I choose to.
What do we discuss, if not our reasons for homeschooling? Answer: Focus the debate on allotments.
The topic of allotments is the Achilles heel of our opponent’s attack. Alaska is so remote, so huge, so flung out, that we simply can’t build and staff enough schools to provide a ‘brick-and-mortar’ schoolhouse for every child. It simply cannot be done and to try is wasteful beyond reason.
Thus, some form of remote education MUST be provided for. Per-student allotments — about $3,000 per child per year –seems like a lot of money re-directed from the public education system until we consider how much a borough school district keeps per student.
Last I looked, the school system receives around $18,000 per child per year in Alaska. Subtract the $3,000 that goes to the allotment if that child is homeschooled, and the school system retains the remaining $15,000 and yet doesn’t incur the cost of educating that child. That $15,000 goes directly into the public school system with no additional student cost. One less student in the already overloaded classes. One less student taking up resources.
We hear opponents of school choice argue that the fixed costs are being forfeited. This is a fallacy. The net gain to the school (the $15,000 not transferred as an allotment) far exceeds the per-student fixed cost.Read here for more on this here).
If a student is removed from the correspondence school system, dropped from the roll call and disappears back into private homeschool—which will happen—the entire $18,000 will be lost to a district. This is a likely outcome in Alaska where many of the homeschoolers actually can’t attend public schools, and the remaining likely won’t, regardless of the existence of an allotment.
The Bottom Line: Allotments retain and attract students into the school system, and they actually are a net financial gain for the public school system. Instead of resisting traditional schools, homeschool parents have a reason to engage. These alone should be more than sufficient debate fodder for those who are unsure about the benefits of granting allotments.
Eric Carter has served for 23 years as a Navy submarine officer and is currently in the Reserves. He has a masters of teaching degree from UAA, an engineering degree from Oregon State University and homeschools his 6 children.
The ice on the Tanana River is thinning, but the tripod at Nenana still stands. Breakup might be a few days later than normal this year for the Nenana Ice Classics ticket holders.
As Alaska braces for the annual spring breakup, the National Weather Service has issued a comprehensive forecast indicating a dynamic season ahead. With temperatures expected to remain below normal, particularly in the western regions, and a robust snowpack persisting across northeastern and western Alaska, the stage is set for a potentially eventful breakup period that could include flooding.
Conditions hint at a dynamic breakup in certain areas, and forecasters note that the circumstances are not as favorable as the preceding year’s historic breakup season.
The 2023 season was characterized by numerous significant ice jams and snowmelt floods across the Interior. The potential for localized flooding remains contingent on air temperatures staying cold through the end of April and into early May.
Dynamic breakup, distinguished by cold early spring air followed by rapid warming, could be compounded by above-average headwater snowpack and river ice thicknesses. This type of breakup typically moves downstream in a somewhat linear fashion and is more prone to ice jam flooding.
Ice thickness across the state is reported to be near normal as of April 1, with certain regions exhibiting above-average snowpack. Notably, the Porcupine, Yukon, Lower Kuskokwim, and Copper basins are experiencing well-above-average snowpack levels. However, the interior snowpack is notably less compared to the past two years.
The North Slope region, in particular, has witnessed record-breaking winter precipitation, indicating an above-average snowpack north of the Brooks Range. Conversely, observations in Southcentral Alaska indicate a mix of normal and above-average snowpack levels.
Looking ahead, the climate outlook for the coming weeks suggests a transition from enhanced ridging to moderate troughing over the eastern Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean, potentially leading to below-normal temperatures in the western half of the state and above-normal temperatures in eastern Alaska.
As breakup timing is evaluated based on historical median breakup dates and current conditions, forecasters anticipate breakup to occur slightly later than usual, with western and southwest Alaska expected to experience a delay of 1-4 days.
The National Weather Service underscores the importance of vigilance and preparedness in the face of potential flooding risks. Village flood potential assessments are continuously reassessed based on evolving outlooks and conditions, with the Experimental Product providing detailed estimations of snowmelt runoff volume, flood potential, and forecast breakup dates for various locations across the state. More information is posted at https://www.weather.gov/aprfc/breakupProducts.
The next Spring Breakup Outlook will be published by NWS on April 26.
A coalition of 21 Republican attorneys that includes Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor has asked a federal judge who ruled against Texas to reconsider in a lawsuit filed over of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ parole policies.
In March, U.S. District Court Judge Drew Tipton of the Southern District of Texas Victoria Division ruled that a coalition of 21 attorneys general led by Texas didn’t have standing to sue. The parole program they sued over is among over a dozen that House Republicans identified as illegal and used as evidence to support their charge to impeach Mayorkas.
In the lawsuit, 20 states argued Mayorkas created an “illegal visa program” to allow up to 30,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans to enter the U.S. a month who otherwise would not qualify under current law.
Mayorkas has argued he has “discretion” to create this and other policies; House Republicans argued he doesn’t. The coalition also argues he doesn’t and sued, saying that Congress authorized parole only “for foreign aliens who meet very specific standards that have not been met in this instance. Yet, contrary to existing law, the program creates a pathway for program participants to apply from their home country and gain lawful status to enter and stay in the U.S. for up to two years, or even longer.”
Florida also sued over this parole program and others separately; two cases are on appeal before the 11th Circuit Court.
The coalition argues that Tipton “applied the wrong standards in evaluating standing,” “engaged in an impermissible accounting exercise,” and “impermissibly evaluated facts occurring after the complaint to find a lack of standing,” among other arguments.
“Most fundamentally, the Opinion applied the wrong standard to determine whether the Plaintiffs had demonstrated that Texas had standing to challenge the CHNV Program,” their motion states.
Texas has suffered an injury, the coalition argues, because state and county funds are spent on illegal foreign nationals to cover health care, education and other welfare benefits they receive. The judge referred to data provided by the Biden administration claiming less illegal foreign nationals entered Texas, ruling that Texas hadn’t suffered an injury and therefore lacked standing.
The coalition pointed to a Fifth Circuit argument that “rejected the relevance of these overall numbers: ‘[F]or purposes of standing, the inquiry is whether the [challenged agency action] caused Texas to have to incur additional financial, law enforcement, and welfare costs, not whether there were generally more enforcement actions year-over-year in the midst of a historic immigration crisis.’”
Attorneys general joining Texas in the coalition represent Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The Biden administration has argued in the multiple lawsuits filed against it that the states suing don’t have standing. Last July, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas and Louisiana didn’t have standing to challenge another Mayorkas policy that effectively ended most deportations of illegal foreign nationals.
In response, Republican U.S. Reps. Chip Roy of Texas and Dan Bishop of North Carolina filed a bill to give state attorneys general standing to sue the secretary of Homeland Security when the federal government refuses to enforce federal immigration law.
Their bill was similar to one twice filed by U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., which would grant states the authority to enforce federal immigration law when the federal government refuses to do so. Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody also led a coalition of 26 state attorneys general calling on Congress to pass it.
