This Labor Day, Attorney General Sean D. Reyes and the Utah Attorney General’s Office honor the backbone of our country, the American workforce. We wish all a happy Labor Day!
Our working men and women are vital to the success and progress of the American way. Their contribution to economic growth, innovation, and prosperity is crucial. Our nation could not provide essential services, infrastructure, or goods without them.
Utah, in particular, where our state motto is “industry,” employs some of the best workers in the country. The contributions of every industry and profession to our state’s history are unmistakable. They have built a society to be proud of, and we are forever grateful for their dedication and hard work.
Join us in celebrating the strength and resilience of American labor.
The settlement will return more than $190 million from Delaware to other states, Utah will receive nearly $3.5 million
SALT LAKE CITY‒The state of Delaware settled with Utah as part of a 30-state bipartisan coalition to end the outstanding damages phase of an unclaimed property dispute before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2023, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court sided with the coalition partners in holding that unclaimed official checks issued by MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. (“MoneyGram”) are governed by the Federal Disposition Act.
“Utah benefits significantly from multi-state coalitions. In this case, people across America had official MoneyGram checks not claimed for various reasons. The unclaimed checks were reported to and held by Delaware but never sent to the intended beneficiary,” said Attorney General Sean D. Reyes. “Thanks to the skilled attorneys within our office and other states, Utah citizens will now have access to claim what is rightfully theirs.”
“The people of Utah are the ultimate winners here. Our team works hard to reunite lost money with its rightful owner, including employing aggressive outreach campaigns, leveraging advanced technology, and partnering with charities, local government leaders, and the news media,” Utah Treasurer Marlo Oaks said. “I hope this victory serves as a reminder to every Utahn to search mycash.utah.gov for unclaimed property, something we should all do at least once a year.”
The settlement effectively ends the remaining damages phase of the consolidated actions of State of Delaware v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al., No. 145 Original, and State of Arkansas, et al. v. State of Delaware, No. 146 Original.
Under the terms of the settlement, Delaware will transfer more than $102 million of the property that MoneyGram reported to Delaware from 2011 to 2017 to the coalition states, based on each monetary instrument’s place of purchase. Delaware’s transfer represents roughly half of the report years disputed in the litigation.
In addition, approximately $89 million deposited by MoneyGram in a litigation escrow account from 2018 to 2022, plus interest earned, will be distributed among all 50 states based on each instrument’s place of purchase. The coalition states will receive nearly $55 million, plus earned interest, from the escrow account.
States will assume custody and responsibility to return any property received under the terms of the settlement or from the escrow account to owners, including paying any claims for the property.
The settlement agreement ends the outstanding parts of the ongoing litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Utah’s lawsuit seeks to end unconstitutional federal control over 18.5 million acres of BLM-held land
SALT LAKE CITY—After decades of legal analysis, the state of Utah has filed a landmark public lands lawsuit asking the U.S. Supreme Court to address whether the federal government can simply hold unappropriated lands within a state indefinitely. Unappropriated lands are those that the federal government simply holds without a congressionally defined purpose. The “unappropriated” land in question is approximately 18.5 million acres in Utah controlled by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).
This lawsuit will NOT impact the millions of “appropriated” acres already designated as national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas, national forests, Tribal lands, or military properties. (See Map).
The federal government currently controls nearly 70 percent of the land in Utah. In comparison, the federal government owns less than one percent of the land in Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island, and less than three percent of the land in Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. (See Map).
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH – Attorney General Sean D. Reyes joined 14 attorneys general on an amicus brief at the United States Supreme Court in Coalition Life v. Carbondale. The case asks the Court to expressly overrule its now-undermined opinion in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000), which permitted speech restrictions around healthcare facilities.
This case arose after Coalition Life challenged the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance of the City of Carbondale, Illinois. The City and all federal courts involved to date with this matter have invoked previous Supreme Court precedent in Hill, which conflicts with more recent Supreme Court cases such as McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 264 (2014), and Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), but remains binding on lower courts. Both the district and appeals court ruled against Coalition Life, dismissing the case, leading to this appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In their brief, the attorneys general write, “…Hill was wrong – and badly so. And overruling it is necessary. First, even though it conflicts with McCullen, Reed, and other cases, Hill remains binding on the lower courts when directly on point… Second, a suspect case remaining on the books, even when not directly on point, can lead courts astray… Third, there are plenty more situations in which individuals are losing their free-speech rights based on buffer-zone laws relying on Hill.”
Joining Utah and Kentucky on the brief were the States of Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.
As the Opioid problem continues to plague our state, a lot of people are curious about how much money the various settlements have brought to Utah. But the reality is that Utah’s Opioid Settlements are best described as works in progress.
Utah has received money from various sources: pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies and others. But there is no bottom-line amount to report, since there are important legal actions still pending.
Here is the picture so far: Settlements that have been finalized will return about $495 million to be divided between the state and the counties. ($252 will come to the state, while about $242 million will go to the counties.) Payments will come over different timeframes ranging from immediate payment to payments over up to 17 years. As of August, 2024, the state has actually received about $69 million, while the counties have received about $59 million.
The settlements are important to our state, since the opioid crisis is still taking an unprecedented toll on families and is ruining lives as the problem evolves.
On this edition of Legally Speaking, we’re getting perspective from our top attorney over the Opioid settlements, Kevin McLean, Assistant Attorney General in the White Collar and Commercial Enforcement Division of our office.
The following is clarification of the Utah Attorney General Office’s role in election audits and criminal investigations:
First, the AGO does not audit elections; audits are the role of other government agencies.
The AGO plays a pivotal and unique role in the state government. As per the Utah Constitution, the AGO offers legal counsel to state agencies, including the Elections Office, and holds statewide criminal jurisdiction, which includes investigating election-related crimes. This unique role has been particularly significant in recent months, with several elections leading to legal challenges and allegations of criminal behavior.
Regarding the challenges to elections and petitions, our attorneys in the State Agency Counsel Division, Constitutional Defense and Special Litigation Division, and Civil Appeals have defended the state in these legal challenges.
Regarding potential criminal complaints, our investigators have reviewed allegations, including those brought to us by the Lieutenant Governor’s Office, of criminal behavior related to individual signature gatherers and continue to do so. In line with the U.S. and Utah constitutions, we want to emphasize that the Utah Attorney General’s Office must protect due process and the principle of innocence until proven guilty. This commitment to fairness is at the core of our legal system. Additionally, GRAMA protects the disclosure of records regarding ongoing investigations, further protecting your rights.
The accusations against the AGO and its personnel of false statements regarding GRAMA requests or collusion with the State Records Committee (SRC) are entirely baseless. Neither Daniel Burton, our General Counsel, nor Lonny Pehrson, our GRAMA Counsel, have ever been accused, let alone found guilty of, lying by a court. Both are highly esteemed by their colleagues and conduct their duties with the highest ethical standards. In addition, the SRC’s history of independent decision-making regarding matters involving the AGO is well documented. The AGO does not communicate with the SRC except through public pleadings and hearings open to the public as a party to GRAMA decision appeals.
The Utah Attorney General’s Office handles thousands of requests for public records every year. The Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) is the way they can get it.
Typically, it is a request from an individual who has a legal interest in a case, or a reporter who requests records in order to complete a story. But notall the documents our office generates are available to the public—they’re specifically not public, due to confidentiality or privacy concerns.
The GRAMA process exists in order for our office to have a process to handle requests with care. Today, the Legally Speaking guest is Lonny Pehrson, Government Records Counsel.
Utah and Wyoming teamed up to sue the BLM for skipping a step in the process before they imposed a new rule that significantly impacts land management and restricts your use of millions of acres of federal land.
The BLM Rule restricts access in the interest of conservation but Utah and Wyoming are fighting back saying the new rule was put into place illegally. The States say the BLM Rule doesn’t comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires the study of the environmental effects of new rules on federal land.
The Utah Attorney General’s Office is on top of this lawsuit saying the BLM exceeded its authority—limiting access to $245 million acres nationwide of federal public land, including $22.8 million acres here in Utah.
In this episode, we’re speaking with Jason Deforest, an assistant attorney general in our office, who is overseeing this lawsuit.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH—Attorney General Sean D. Reyes joined 22 attorneys general in an amicus brief in Alabama v. U.S. Secretary of Education at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The filing, which was led by the State of Mississippi, supports a challenge to the federal government’s brazen attempt to undermine Title IX discrimination protections for girls and women.
At its core, Title IX ensures women and girls have the same educational opportunities as boys and men. On April 19, the U.S. Department of Education published its final rule for Title IX, radically transforming federal policies governing and protecting against discrimination in schools around the nation. Multiple lawsuits were filed to stop the new regulation from going into effect on August 1. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama declined to grant a preliminary injunction on the challenge from the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina over the legality of the Title IX rule. The States filed an emergency appeal at the Eleventh Circuit, which issued an administrative injunction against the rule, pending future deliberations.
In their brief, the attorneys general argue that “background principles show that Title IX prohibits only discrimination based on biological sex,” and that “extending Title IX beyond biological sex would have profound negative ramifications.”
As the States write, “Extending Title IX beyond biological sex would hand to federal agencies—and strip from the people—power over significant questions on sexual orientation and gender identity. It would empower the Department of Education to require schools to force boys and girls to share bathrooms, locker rooms, and other intimate spaces with those of the opposite sex. It would allow Washington-based functionaries to end the longstanding practice—necessary for equal opportunity, competitive integrity, and physical safety—of separating school athletics based on sex. And, because Title IX’s nondiscrimination prohibition now applies in federally funded healthcare programs, it would allow agency officials with no medical training to dictate to doctors when and how they can rely on sex-based distinctions when caring for patients.”
This challenge from the Alabama-led coalition closely tracks another lawsuit from a group o
