(The Center Square) – Nine states have filed a lawsuit this week to stop President Joe Biden's executive order concerning federal workers and voter registration.

The states say that the federal bureaucracy is inserting itself into state electoral systems and the voter registration process without the scrutiny of a public comment period. 

Mississippi, Montana, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on Tuesday to halt the implementation of the March 7, 2021, executive order.

Biden's order required federal agencies to develop strategies to expand voter registration efforts and to submit plans to the administration within 200 days.

The complaint says the order would “convert the federal bureaucracy into a voter registration organization and to turn every interaction between a federal bureaucrat and a member of the public into a voter registration pitch.

“That exceeds any authority executive entities have under federal law, violates the Constitution, threatens states' attempt to regulate voter registration, and thus ultimately undermines the voter registration systems set up by the states,” the complaint says.

The eight states also say the order would have consequences for state elections by turning the “federal bureaucracy into a voter-registration outfit to register voters for state and local elections as well as federal elections.”

The complaint says the plans of agencies are secret and are not being put through a public notice and comment process. The U.S. Department of Justice has asserted executive privilege in denying several public records requests by the Florida-based Foundation for Government Accountability, which took the federal government to court.

“That bald attempt to shield agency action from public scrutiny is the best evidence of their unlawfulness, and is, itself, unlawful,” the complaint reads. 

“This executive order is a prime example as to why the Biden-Harris administration has been such a disaster,” said Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves in a release. “They're focused on everything except doing their job, and Americans are paying the price. Federal agencies should be prioritizing their core duties, not acting as an extension of the Democratic National Committee.

“It really goes to show just how far the Biden-Harris administration will go to expand their power, and it's why Mississippi will continue pushing back when they violate the law.”

“From the day this unlawful Executive Order (EO 14019) was signed, my team and I had hoped it was another Biden administration word salad with no action,” Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson said in a release. “Unfortunately, that was not the case. In 2022, several secretaries of state and I sent a letter to the administration asking them to stand down. Our office has since dug in to study the EO's implementation and sent FOIA requests to ensure we had enough facts to file suit ending this absurd EO.

“Thankfully, this day has come! We look forward to continuing to push as hard as we can to stop the use of taxpayer dollars for illicit means.”

The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability sent a letter on May 13 to Shalanda Young, the director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, asking for the strategic plans submitted to the White House. 

(The Center Square) – Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody is leading a 20-state coalition opposing a Treasury Department claim that state laws preventing de-banking policies are a “national security threat.” The latest action is only an “attempt to stoke confusion about state laws to advance extreme activist agendas,” Moody said.

“The Biden-Harris administration has pushed a radical agenda since its first day in office,” Moody said. “From open borders, to attacking gas stoves and washing machines, they now are attempting to use the power of the Treasury Department to accuse states, that seek to protect their citizens from unjustified radical de-banking, of being a national security threat. This is nothing more than another attempt to leverage the power of the federal government to achieve this administration's destabilizing, activist agenda.”

In a letter to Yellen, the coalition expressed their “serious objections to your department's recent letter characterizing state laws attempting to protect individuals from de-banking as harmful to national security.”

At issue is a request from U.S. Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-NJ, who argues state laws are “fracturing the national banking system” and “may conflict with federal laws intended to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.” His letter doesn't mention ESG policies but questions “when states enact laws that subject banks to processes and disclosure requirements that are at cross-purposes with federal law, SAR confidentiality could be jeopardized,” referring to federal law requiring banks to file suspicious activity reports.

No state laws prohibit banks from filing SARs or from complying with the Bank Secrecy Act.

Last month, Gottheimer expressed concerns to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen at a U.S. House Committee on Financial Services hearing about “recent state laws that require banks to provide an explanation with specific reasons for closing or denying an account including situations where the decision was related to financial crimes risk.” He was concerned they “may conflict with federal requirements, especially the obligations that banks have under the federal anti-money laundering laws, that prevent terrorists and illicit financing in the US financial systems.”

In response, Yellen said banks are required to file SARs and comply with federal law. Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Brian Nelson then sent a letter to Gottheimer saying they shared his concerns.

“State laws interfering with financial institutions' ability to comply with national security requirements heighten the risk that international drug traffickers, transnational organized criminals, terrorists, and corrupt foreign officials will use the U.S. financial system to launder money, evade sanctions, and threaten our national security,” Nelson wrote, referring to a newly enacted Florida law, HB 989.

Nelson claims HB 989 “defines as an ‘unsafe and unsound practice' a financial institution's reliance on any factor that is ‘not a quantitative … standard' to determine which customers to serve or services to offer” and “prohibits consideration of a person's ‘affiliations' or ‘business sector' to make these decisions.”

An AP “Climate Desk” initiative claims the Florida law bans Environmental, Social, Governance policies. According to the bill language, it was filed to prohibit financial institutions from discriminating against customers based on their religious and political views and from creating a social credit score system to restrict or penalize their purchases or access to credit because of them.

The law protects “consumers from discrimination and entities like religious organizations, gun manufacturers, and those engaged in fossil fuel exploration from improper political pressure for their lawful and often constitutionally protected activities,” Moody said. “No consumer or business should be denied services based on political beliefs or religious views or because of some arbitrary social credit score derived from ideological agendas.”

Nelson's letter “deliberately misleads financial institutions,” Moody argues, “by falsely suggesting” that HB 989 prohibits them from considering whether a consumer is associated with designated terrorist groups. It was passed to ensure “that financial institutions focus on true risk-based factors and stay out of the business of forcing radical social policies,” she said. Claiming “that prohibiting discrimination will harm national security” is “outlandish.”

Florida already prohibits state pension money from being invested in funds that advance ESG policies. Gov. Ron DeSantis has taken executive action on the issue for several years. Last year, he led a coalition of 18 governors to fight the Biden-Harris ESG agenda; 25 state attorneys general also sued to block a federal ESG plan they argue could jeopardize the retirement savings of two-thirds of the U.S. population.

The Treasury “has once again forsaken its statutory role and instead chosen to intervene on behalf of activists seeking to hijack the financial system for their political ends,” the coalition argues. “It is even more disappointing that the Treasury Department would use ‘national security' as cover for large banks' abuse of power to achieve those ends.”

Joining Moody are attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

(The Center Square) — Republican attorneys general from 21 states, led by the attorneys general of Montana and Virginia, submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia defending the federal law banning TikTok in the U.S.

President Joe Biden signed the legislation into law in April due to concerns that through Chinese-owned parent company Bytedance, the Chinese Communist Party might be able to gain access to users' private data or influence American youth toward communism. The law threatens to prohibit the app in the U.S. if Bytedance does not sell its shares in the social media company by Jan. 19, 2025. 

TikTok and Bytedance responded with a lawsuit. 

“TikTok poses a clear danger to our national security that cannot be ignored,” Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares said in a statement. “The divest-or-ban legislation is a necessary measure to safeguard Americans, and I urge the court to uphold Congress's actions. Protecting the privacy and security of American citizens is non-negotiable, and we will stand firm.”

Montana was the first state to pass a law banning the app wholly within state lines, effective January 2024. TikTok also fought that action, but the lawsuit is currently on hold while the federal case is ongoing. 

In addition to Montana and Virginia, the attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah signed onto the brief.