政府表示

  • Holland & Knight的政府代表团队遍布全球,将从我们多学科的实践中提取最佳代表您的利益,并与任何级别的政府打交道。
  • 我们的团队包括律师和专业人士与联邦,州和地方政府有几十年的工新万博manbetx官网下载作经验。我们利用我们在政府法律方面获得的知识——以及我们已建立的工作关系——不断努力为您带来尽可能强大的代表。
  • 我们代表了数百名当地和州政府,影响政府实体的全部问题以及处理它们的人。
政府大楼

概述

国家声誉的服务需求的本地和国家政府以及私营部门企业在处理与政府部门——政府代表团队Holland &骑士提供顾问、咨询、宣传、争议解决和诉讼支持可能出现的各种问题。

国家范围和综合实践方法增强您的支持

结合Holland & Knight多学科的实践和团队——包括政府财政、采购、合同、拨款、诉讼、政府关系、土地使用和其他专业领域——我们的政府法律业务包括律师遍布律所的运营地点,包括亚特兰大的主要办事处,波士顿、芝加哥、佛罗里达、洛杉矶、纽约、旧金山和华盛顿特区

国家和地方政府代表

专责小组的经验丰富,包括一般意见和谘询、行政、诉讼、规管、解决争议、出席公众聆讯和会议,以及拟备法例和决议。

我们的政府法律律师协助数百个地方和州政府,包括:

  • 市政府
  • 佣金
  • 村庄
  • 当局
  • 部落当局
  • 国家部门和机构
  • 监管和行政机构

协助私营企业

Holland & Knight政府代表团队代表与政府打交道的企业,就联邦、州和地方政府事务为私营企业和个人提供建议、代表和法律顾问,涉及范围广泛。

实践领域

我们的国家和地方政府和私营部门业务和个人的代表涵盖了许多实质性实践领域,包括但不限于:

  • 行政的
  • 拨款
  • 投标抗议
  • 公民权利
  • 商务
  • 社区发展整体赠款融资
  • 建设法律
  • 区域影响的发展
  • 弱势企业和项目(DBEs)
  • 差异的研究
  • 多样性咨询
  • 经济发展激励和计划
  • 教育
  • 土地征用权
  • 能源
  • 环境法律
  • 联邦DBE计划的遵从性
  • 联邦代表和拨款
  • 金融
  • 政府合约及采购
  • 政府项目
  • 政府规定
  • 政府关系及事务
  • 增长管理
  • 卫生保健
  • 印第安人的法律
  • 保险
  • 劳动和就业
  • 土地用途及分区
  • 许可
  • 诉讼
  • 少数民族和妇女拥有的企业和项目(MWBEs)
  • 议会程序
  • 政治活动
  • 公共财政
  • 公共政策
  • 公共/私人伙伴关系和重建
  • 公用事业监管
  • 房地产
  • 中小企业项目
  • 电信
  • 运输

案例研究

多媒体

In the latest episode of our Public Policy & Regulation Group's \"Conversations with State Attorneys General\" podcast series, attorney Stephen Cobb talks with Colorado Deputy Attorney General for Intergovernmental Affairs Kurtis Morrison. In this episode they dive into the ever-changing dynamic between state attorneys general and policy-making. Mr. Morrison offers a Coloradan perspective on criminal justice reform and pandemic-related legislation, two areas where his office was most active in 2020. They also touch on multistate collaboration among AGs and what their shifting roles could mean going forward.

\n

Podcast Transcript

\n

Stephen Cobb: Welcome back to another installment of Holland & Knight's Eyes on Washington podcast series, State AG edition. My name is Stephen Cobb. I'm a former deputy attorney general from the Commonwealth of Virginia and now a partner in Holland & Knight's public policy and regulatory team. It's great to be with you. This week, I have the deputy attorney general from the great state of Colorado, Kurt Morrison. Kurt, welcome to the podcast.

\n

Kurtis Morrison: Thanks for having me, Stephen.

\n

Stephen Cobb: Kurt, you have such an interesting professional background that led you into working in the Colorado AG's office that I think is interesting because it is indicative of the breadth and spread of influence that accompany state AGs. Can you tell our listeners a little bit about kind of your background and what led to you working for the Colorado attorney general?

\n

Kurtis Morrison: I'd be happy to. I have a background that kind of spans from being a congressional staffer to being a state government level staffer. So originally, I started out as an aide in the United States Senate for a member from the Nebraska delegation. And then later on, I eventually worked my way around Colorado state government, going from being a legislative staffer to a department legislative director. And then I worked for, at the time, Governor [John] Hickenlooper as his legislative director. At the end of his second term, Attorney General [Phil] Weiser asked if I'd be willing to join the staff and be in a similar role helping him with public policy, which was an opportunity I couldn't say no to.

\n

Changing Role of State AGs and AG Influence on Policy-Making

\n

Stephen Cobb: And that's one of the things I find really interesting about the ever-changing and expanding role of state attorneys general, which is that, you know, 20 years ago or maybe even 10 years ago, for many, if you asked about what state attorneys general do, they would focus on whether the top cop or there would be a presumption that they do criminal prosecutions, which in many states is either limited or not part of the repertoire at all. And one of the things that we've seen, particularly in the last 10 years and somewhat in the last 20, is state AGs really stepping up to be leaders, not just as lawyers representing state agencies, not just as regulators pursuing consumer protection angles, but as leaders in a much broader policy area. So how have you seen that role and that influence kind of change over time?

\n

Kurtis Morrison: I had the opportunity to work with, in Colorado, the past three different attorneys general in their offices. And during the time I was there, I've noticed that they've gone from being more of a career, traditional-type prosecutor from their background that you would expect, to one that also has that same expectation of their professional background but also has an interest in public policy and working to influence things at the state capitol and in the federal government as well, too. So I have noticed that it's gone from having more of an emphasis now on becoming involved through administrative regulations, through public comment, seeking public policy change through multistate litigation and then also just being more of an active participant in the legislative process on issues that are within the attorney general's traditional swim lanes, like consumer protection bills or criminal justice reform or things like that.

\n

Stephen Cobb: I mean, one of the things interesting, kind of from a political angle that I think we've seen possibly for the first time over the last, I don't know, six years or so, is members of Congress leaving to run statewide as attorneys general. And in hearing from them, there is the sense that, there is the thought that, they can have a greater impact on the discussion around policy as a state AG than even as perhaps a member of Congress. What are your thoughts on that?

\n

Kurtis Morrison: Well, I think that's certainly true. We've had a lot of very high-profile members of Congress return to their states to become state attorneys general, and the two who would always come to mind as some of the greatest examples are Keith Ellison of Minnesota and recently now [Department of Health and Human Services] Secretary Xavier Becerra of California. And I think you're absolutely right, Stephen, that goes to the impact that one, I think it's an interesting job that members of Congress are naturally drawn to, and two, I think when you compare that to serving in Congress, is a fantastic role for people who are legislatively attuned. But there's also some appeal as well, I think, to being in an executive role where you have not a cohort or a cabal of several hundred people with you, but you have an entire agency and you're charged with providing leadership and management to that agency to ensure that they carry out your vision for what a good law enforcement should be for your state. So I can see the appeal of why we're seeing more and more of a trend of members of Congress being drawn to these roles.

\n

Stephen Cobb: And I would be remiss if I didn't point out that there are three members of President Biden's cabinet that were once former state attorneys general: [Department of Energy] Secretary [Jennifer] Granholm, Secretary Becerra and obviously Vice President [Kamala] Harris. What are some of the ways that you've seen state AGs influencing the policy discussions, both within their states and as national actors?

\n

Kurtis Morrison: Within the state, I think it varies from state to state, depending on what their statutory charge is. But in general, I think the state attorneys general role, when it comes to the state legislative process, seems to be twofold. One is advocating for legislation and having an involvement in the state legislative process as an actor and not a passive observer. And that includes moving forward and pushing a strengthening of the state antitrust act or pushing for greater consumer protections related to COVID, or seeking criminal justice bills and then going and testifying in front of the appropriate committees of reference at the Capitol, too, and being more of a of a hands-on type policy advocate. The second part is, I'd say it's more of a support role than the legislative process where it's not so advocacy-oriented, but it's having an outcome and a vested stake in the products produced by the legislative process or sound. And what I mean by that is the legislative branch can produce laws that are not always defensible in court. Sometimes they don't always take a fair and full-front look at whether or not a bill is constitutionally defensible. And there's a role for state AGs to play there by ensuring that they're involved on the front end to ensure that the drafting of these measures is sound. And if there are constitutional infirmities to ensure that those are ironed out and addressed early on, because no state AG wants to be facing a bill that's challenged after it was signed into law and then explain to the legislators and those who passed it, this one really doesn't have much of a solid chance of being upheld. So almost like a quality control check is how I would describe that second half. On the national level, it's much more diverse there. So first off, there's federal legislation and involvement with Congress. We tend to keep very looped in with our members of our federal delegation, and at times we partner with them on matters of federal law. Most recently, we spoke to some members of our congressional delegation about seeking concurrent enforcement authority so federal laws can be enforced at the state level as well so we can supplement federal resources. There's also, I said earlier, weighing in on administrative policy. A tremendous amount of federal law is now done through the agency Administrative Procedures Act and the rulemaking process. We weigh in through public comments with our other colleague AGs and other states quite a bit to help inform the agencies on what would be wise policy or what would not be good for our states. And then the third, which is less policy but it can have that outcome, is multistate litigation. And by joining with our other colleagues in other states, too, we have the ability to see positive changes through the outcome, through settlement negotiations.

\n

2020 in Review: Criminal Justice Reform, COVID-19

\n

Stephen Cobb: Excellent, let's unpack all three of this just a little bit. One of the things that you first hit on was state-specific and working with state legislators. I remember that sometimes those can be some really awkward conversations. What were some of the issues that were top of mind for Coloradans? Over 2020, obviously COVID, but I'm sure there were many others in Colorado. And tell me a little bit about the role that your office played.

\n

Kurtis Morrison: Sure. I think there's really two areas. If I look back on 2020 and think about how was our office involved with the state legislative process, you hit on one of them with COVID-19. The second one, which I can start with, is criminal justice reform. After the murder of George Floyd last summer, that deeply impacted Colorado, and we had weeks of community protests that were pushing for change at the state capitol. That resulted in a, I would almost call it an omnibus criminal justice reform package, at the Colorado capitol that dealt with everything from required use of body cameras by officers to use of force limitations prohibiting chokeholds and spelling out standards, decertifications for officers who violate the public trust and, specific to us, giving the state attorney general authority to investigate patterns and practices of agencies that violate a person's constitutional rights and privileges. And this bill came forward quite, quite swiftly. And what happened is we were in regular contact with the sponsors to identify components of the bill that may not have been workable and offer alternatives, so we could remain positive in helping them accomplish their goals and also to offer up ideas and suggestions. But really, our involvement there was spawned by the fact that we embraced the change of the software by the community and offered to be partners, and the legislative branch was welcoming of that. On the second component, COVID-19 really dominated all 12 months of 2020 for our department. So it shut down our state capitol. The legislative branch had to go home for several months on a temporary adjournment when the pandemic first started, before people got a grasp on how we could immediately start to live with this through masks and other preventative measures. We had the functions related to COVID-19 on the enforcement side, like defending public health orders that were issued by the governor and the state health department and pursuing bad actors that used the pandemic to defraud people or gouge prices. In terms of the policy and legislative side, when the legislative branch returned, we really pushed for stronger consumer protections that were deemed necessary as a result of the pandemic, and the two that immediately come to mind are, as I just mentioned, price gouging on COVID-19 specific supplies, particularly personal protective equipment, and those who were posting things online that were a bag of 25 masks and you could only get them for $45 and it was an increase of a percent that was just an outrageous increase.

\n

Stephen Cobb: Was that limited to the COVID time period or COVID products, or was that an expansion generally for the price gouging statutes?

\n

Kurtis Morrison: The Colorado law was an expansion generally, but it provided some added qualifications during times of public disasters and emergencies.

\n

Stephen Cobb: Makes sense.

\n

Kurtis Morrison: And the other component, too, was looking at wage garnishment. So with Congress starting to put out funds to help people who were out of work, one concern that was out there, particularly for us, was that those funds needed to go to people who had to pay rent, pay their mortgage and put food on the table, and we didn't want that to be taken away from those families in the form of debt collection actions or wage garnishment. So we worked with the legislative branch to hit pause on the current laws there that would ensure that those checks wouldn't be docked or taken away during the pandemic time.

\n
It was amazing how COVID-19 really impacted all areas of government, and we had an all hands on deck from every state department during this time.
\n

Multistate Collaboration and Litigation

\n

Stephen Cobb: And, you know, that's a good segue, because I know there were times during 2020 where state AGs were singularly focused on issues affecting their states. And then there were times when they were working shoulder to shoulder with other state attorneys general on issues that affected a couple of states or the entire country. Walk me through a little bit about the role multistates play in elevating kind of the role and prominence of state attorneys general as regulators and as policy leaders.

\n

Kurtis Morrison: Yeah, I'd be happy to. And I may need to be a little bit guarded on some of the things I say because of ongoing multilitigation, multistate litigation actions we have moving. I would say, for starters here, so in terms of elevating prominence and such, one thing that all attorneys general are really good at is one, having good partnerships with all their colleagues in other states. And as a result of that, through some of the trade groups like the National Association of Attorneys General, they really get a solid understanding of who has what expertise. And so from that, when you have certain actions that were brought, there are deliberate decisions and discussions on who would be the proper office or AG to take the helm when that litigation goes forward. So, for example, my employer, Attorney General Weiser, he's known as both an antitrust expert from his time at the Department of Justice and also an expert in the field of technology law. So with recent actions against some of the big tech companies there, he was kind of an obvious fit when people were thinking what would be the natural AG office that would be at the helm of each of those actions moving forward.

\n

Stephen Cobb: Now, one of the things that, with those pooling of resources, you know, I think historically people saw that a lot in some of the tobacco litigation in the '90s and the role of having that increased employment power, as in having that many more hundreds of attorneys all pulling in the same direction on behalf of state AGs. But also it increases the state AGs' negotiating perspective as opposed to having 50 separate negotiations going on at one time. Would you agree with that, or do you think that time and place and that changes? Sometimes you want to be on your own versus within a multistate. Where do you see that kind of going back and forth, to the extent you can comment? If you can't, I understand.

\n

Kurtis Morrison: Sure, sure Stephen. It's really specific to each negotiation. I mean, some attorneys general may have a completely different mindset of what's a good deal or a good settlement for their state versus others, and sometimes you see schisms as a result of that. But by and large, I've noticed that I've seen the state AGs really work together as a team on some of these issues that that span across party boundaries and rural versus urban divides. And as you mentioned, it's a really good way to make better use of our resources. And it's just a more efficient way to pursue litigation, too. So we don't have 30 or 40 different offices all swimming in the same direction, but they don't have a coordinated strategy or effort. It just makes more sense for our limited staff that we have.

\n

Looking Ahead: What to Expect in 2021

\n

Stephen Cobb: Now, you alluded to some ongoing litigation earlier. You mentioned antitrust as it relates to your office, but kind of looking into your crystal ball for 2021 or even going into 2022, what do you see are some areas that are likely to garner increased attention from state attorneys general?

\n

Kurtis Morrison: Sure. I think well, the answer is probably different for each person in an AG's office, as you ask them here. But my best prediction going on is several things. One is that opioid litigation is going to continue to be at the forefront for all state AG offices, just as it has been for the last two or three years or so. Holding the actors accountable who caused the opioid epidemic is one of the highest, if not the highest, priority for all state AGs. I think it's curious if we see something come from the congressional redistricting process. So this is really a state-by-state specific issue, now that we have a new census underway and we have a redistricting of some states that are going to gain or lose a member of Congress here. It's possible we might see some litigation challenging new maps. They'll probably be at the state level, but we may see that crop up and that might be something that we can track based on party differences. But it's definitely going to have heightened attention as a majority of the U.S. House is very much in play for 2022. A third thing I would add to that is a trend I've noticed quite a bit under both the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration – and I think in the foreseeable future – where state AGs feel obligated to hold the federal government accountable to acting within the four corners of its legal boundaries. And we did see significant litigation from state AGs on the prior two administrations in which states were seeking to hold federal elections and check on issues that impacted their specific states. I don't think that's likely to change any time soon. This is still very early in the new administration right now that was just sworn in in January, so it's hard to say, but I think that's probably a model that is not going to go away any time in the near future.

\n

Stephen Cobb: Right, there are always those partisan divides. I think many would say that Democratic AGs were the primary antagonists to the Trump Administration, and vice versa, Republican attorneys general were the primary antagonists to the Obama Administration. But when we get out the antagonistic relationship, what are some areas that you see as opportunities to partner or collaborate with the new administration when it comes to areas of overlapping either policy agreement or enforcement?

\n

Kurtis Morrison: Well, I think consumer protection is always going to be one of those areas that most state AGs will agree with the Biden Administration on. So whether that means providing concurrent authority for federal consumer laws to supplement or offset federal consumer protection agencies, that's something I think you'll see on the table. There are a number of areas that are only regulated in terms of consumer protections that only have federal oversight and not state oversight, or some that are billion-dollar industries that happen to impact millions, if not tens of millions, of customers. It really begs the question of just having one overseer, if one federal agency really is the proper way to go about things because they have limited resources like any of us, too. Updating our antitrust and merger laws is something that has a lot of state AG interest now, and once you see the Biden Administration appoint the new assistant AG for antitrust, the Department of Justice, I suspect we're going to see conversations move forward on that. Forced arbitration always continues to pop up as well from throughout the country. Civil rights will definitely be and continue to be a major issue, from preserving voting rights, protecting our access to the ballot box, criminal justice reform and tools to support law enforcement officers. And then related to that, as well, is seeking federal support so we have the money necessary to train local law enforcement officers, which is an obligation that many state AGs have with their sheriffs and their police inside their states. Marijuana and continued reform at the federal level is something we're already seeing from some state AGs, including Attorney General Weiser, pushing for opening access to banking for marijuana businesses and continued normalization of the new industry. But I think those are some of the areas that you might see a lot of consensus between the new administration, and it would probably also, many of those ideas stand party lines among the state AGs as well.

\n

Stephen Cobb: Well, let me throw out another one and get your thoughts, which is that whenever the government puts out lots of loans or grants – and we saw that through the various funding and support through COVID, but also it is very prevalent in the potential passage of an infrastructure plan – when you're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, is the potential false claims actions. You know, that's not something that is immediate because obviously that money has to go out into the world first before there are issues. But do you see that as a potential issue as we look two, three years down the line when there's that much money that's being appropriated out?

\n

Kurtis Morrison: I think that's very much a good point there. The last time I read up on the issue, I think state false claims actions are, probably about 50 percent of all states have one in place. I think with this magnitude of federal money that's now going to be coming to the states, it does make sense that a lot more states would pursue a state-level corollary to the federal False Claims Act.

\n

Community Engagement with State AGs

\n

Stephen Cobb: Which would be an interesting thing to keep an eye on. You know, one of the things that occurs to me as we talk about the growing role that state AGs play in a policy space is that I don't think that many, be that advocacy organizations, be that industry, be that corporations or be that individual activists, are as used to going to a state AG to have their voice heard on a policy issue as much as they are on a legal issue. How do you see that role change for state AGs the more and more they take kind of broad policy positions? And what are the best ways to seek engagement to provide information and background as those decisions and positions are being formulated?

\n

Kurtis Morrison: I think the answer to your question, it really flows from the top. Each state attorney general manages his or her department differently. And I'm sure some are far more open to collaborating and having an open door to people who want to come and talk policy than others here. Attorney General Weiser has given us the directive that we have an open door, and he would say he has a principle of stakeholder due process, which is if there's an issue out there that's at the state capitol or something related to what we do, we're not going to deny them the opportunity to be heard. And we may not come forward with a policy position or a litigation we do or don't file based on what it is they provide. But he doesn't prefer that we move forward without giving anyone the opportunity to come in and let their views be known to us too. And that's something I think is true for him both in how we pursue litigation and how we also engage with the legislative branch.

\n

Stephen Cobb: And one of those things, I think that we touched on at the very beginning of our conversation, when it strikes at the heart of that public perception of state AG offices, is that I think people also are under the assumption that every state AG office has the same power. So if you're in Delaware, they have the same power as if it's in Illinois, as if it's in Colorado, as if it's in Arizona. And that's simply not the case. And there are some offices that have, that oversee all prosecutions in the state. There are no local DAs because they all flow up through the attorney general's office. There are some that have very limited criminal jurisdiction. There are some that represent all of the state agencies and boards, and there are some where that is the purview of the governor's administration and what they have called their in-house or their general counsels. What are some of the things in your mind that make Colorado's AG office and powers unique?

\n

Kurtis Morrison: Well, that's a really good question. So I think unlike many other state AGs' office, our role in the criminal justice world is somewhat limited in scope. It's not nearly as broad as our role in civil litigation. But there are some powers it has, like, for example, that we can be named a special prosecutor at the behest of the governor in cases of extenuating circumstances when a district attorney is not able to take on a case. One of the most significant differences I think we have from other states is the patterns and practices obligation that I mentioned earlier. The federal government has had for some time now – the federal law gives the ability to the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate patterns and practices of violations by agencies and governments that infringe or step upon people's constitutional rights that are protected, whether they're privileges or immunities. The criminal justice reform bill that passed last year provided a state-level corollary in Colorado law for Attorney General Weiser, but it wasn't limited to law enforcement agencies. It was extended to all governments in Colorado.

\n
So if there is any city agency or perhaps a county department that is not in the law enforcement realm but is in a regulatory realm, and they're in some way deemed to be acting out of step with what's required under the Constitution, the attorney general in Colorado now has the ability to step in and file an action to stop those patterns and practices from occurring.
\n

I think that's a significant difference that we have from many other states there. And I can't say for certain how many others do or don't have that authority, but I don't think any of them have as broad authority as the Colorado General Assembly placed in the state laws that govern the attorney general.

\n

Closing Thoughts: What's Happening in Colorado

\n

Stephen Cobb: It does occur, you've been incredibly generous with your time, and before we close, I wanted to give you the opportunity to highlight one program or initiative from your office that you think our listeners might be interested in hearing or that you think needs further amplification. And I was also hoping you might give one tip or a bit of advice to those looking to engage and work collaboratively with you or with your office going forward.

\n

Kurtis Morrison: Well, when it comes to engaging collaboratively with our office going forward, I would just say the biggest thing is just always make it known and speak up if you want to say something to us. So we try to have multiple different points of entry for someone who wants to reach the attorney general or to put something on our radar that ranges from, we have a consumer protection hotline if someone feels they've been wronged by a bad actor who took advantage of them in the business world. We have our main communication outposts at our front desk with the general public who calls that way, and we also have an Office of Community Engagement that strives to interact with our local governments and with stakeholders throughout the state on a daily basis. So we try to acknowledge that interfacing with government is not always easy, and sometimes it can be intimidating for the general public to call a main line and expect that you're going to get responsiveness. So we try to have many different ways for people to reach us and be as responsive in any which way we can. In terms of the attorney general's priorities going forward here, there are many that I could certainly put out there, but one that really matters to him a lot that is more something he's doing to support rural Colorado, a project that he calls COPPER. And the acronym I can't repeat here. But in a nutshell, what this program does is it provides funding for local community colleges that are in areas of the state that are more rural and have smaller populations, and it provides extra training opportunities for them to develop expertise in the areas of building mitigation, specifically asbestos mitigation. Because one thing that the AG learned early on from his travels around the state over the last few years is remediating asbestos-built housing in rural Colorado is a very big challenge because one, it's easy to always go to the next parcel of land that's undeveloped and develop there because you don't have any mitigation costs, and two, it's hard to get people who have the expertise to remediate asbestos and other harmful materials to come to rural Colorado, because it may not be as helpful for their business to drive two or three hours to get there, and they've lost a whole day on one job site. So this is really about trying to develop a skilled trade in the rural parts of the state and encouraging them to stay there and at the same time providing on the site, on the job training opportunities with these dilapidated housing units so we can provide more housing in rural Colorado and also provide more skilled laborers out there as well.

\n

Stephen Cobb: Sounds like an important initiative, and Kurt, we really appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and perspectives with us. My name is Stephen Cobb, and this has been the Holland & Knight Eyes on Washington podcast series, our state attorneys general edition. Again, special thanks to Deputy Attorney General of Colorado Kurt Morrison for sharing his thoughts and views.

","link":{"label":"Podcast: A Conversation with Colorado Deputy Attorney General Kurtis Morrison","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/podcast-a-conversation-with-colorado-deputy-ag-kurtis-morrison","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/podcast-a-conversation-with-colorado-deputy-ag-kurtis-morrison","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/04/media_reyes_state_ag_podcast_still.jpg","alt":"Outside of Capitol rotunda with American flag, blue background, Utah State Attorney General Sean Reyes headshot on right side"},"description":"

In this episode of our Public Policy & Regulation Group’s “Conversations with State Attorneys General” podcast series, Public Policy Partner Jim Schultz talks with Attorney General of Utah Sean Reyes about his path to a career in public service and what initiatives his office is currently focusing on. Attorney General Reyes discusses big technology companies and how state attorneys general are working to strike a balance between appropriate regulation while not stifling innovation. He also describes the collaborative work that state AGs do in curating policy changes in Washington, D.C. and their efforts to push back against federal overreach to hold the administration in power accountable, regardless of party affiliation.

\n
\n

Podcast Transcript

\n

Jim Schultz: Welcome to Holland & Knight's, Eyes on Washington. In this next installment, I'm proud to have on today, Sean Reyes, who is the Attorney General from the state of Utah. My name is Jim Schultz. I chair the state attorneys general practice at the firm, and I'm very pleased to have such an esteemed guest on today. Sean, welcome.

\n

Sean Reyes: Thank you so much, Jim and thanks to Holland & Knight for hosting. It's a pleasure to be on with you, my friend.

\n

Jim Schultz: Thank you. Sean, you have a very interesting and humble background. I think it'd be great for our listeners just to hear a little bit about your background, where you came from and how you got to where you are today.

\n

Sean Reyes: Thank you. Appreciate it. Yes, my dad was an immigrant from the Philippines. Spanish and Filipino heritage. His uncle had served at one time as president of the Philippines. So we have a little bit of public service in our background. But he came to escape the Marcos regime under very difficult circumstances. He was an amazing hero of mine and accomplished so much in his own country and gave up all of that to come and live the American dream and escape the totalitarian regime there. That was in the late 60s when he came penniless, not knowing anyone and established himself and started to build his American dream. My mom was born and raised on the big island of Hawaii, so she's Japanese, Hawaiian and Chinese. I'm a kind of a melting pot in terms of race and ethnicity, but grew up when they met married in a little tougher part of the Los Angeles area. So, I was born in Southern California, if any of you have been by the airport in LAX and seen a big donut, kind of iconic Randi's donut there, a landmark that's right there on La Cienega where I was raised, and I went to junior high school out in the San Fernando Valley. I went home almost every summer to Hawaii to work on my grandparents farm. So really, I got to live the rural, rustic life, I got to live the inner city and then suburban life. I loved it all. Multireligious, multiethnic, multi political family. I got recruited to play some ball and came out to play for Brigham Young University, found out I really wasn't good enough to play there, but fell in love with the state and fell in love with a young lady from the state of Utah. It's been now twenty five years of marriage, an absolute treasure, the angel of my life and six kids and several careers, including this crazy one in public service later and we're still together going strong and the state of Utah is going strong. I just won a reelection and honor to serve four more years now in my third term, Jim.

\n

 

\n

\"Utah

\n

 

\n

Jim Schultz: Sean, that's great, thank you so much. Let's talk a little bit about what some of the priorities in your office are now. But, before you get into that, this is Eyes on Washington, right? That's the name of this podcast, and somebody asked me the other day why Eyes on Washington if you're going to talk about AGs? My response to them is, if you hadn't been watching AGs have been taking on issues that have national significance in the past number of years, and not only that, but where you have a Republican administration in office, you see Democratic AGs kind of holding them accountable in a way. And when you see a Democratic administration in, you know, you see Republican AGs taking on the administration in a bipartisan way. When there are big issues across the country that are affecting this country, you see state AGs in a bipartisan way, stepping up and taking on things like, you know, data privacy and things like that. Sean, what are the priorities in your office? And if you can focus a little bit on what you've been doing on the more national issues, that would be great.

\n

Sean Reyes: Of course, and you summarized that so well, Jim. I think we should take you with us as state AGs, as our PR director, because the reality is most people around the country don't know what AGs do. I didn't know before I became an attorney general, I didn't come from within the office, I came from the private sector. So just to touch more on my background, I spent 14 years at our largest private law firm representing a lot of technology companies and litigating and trying cases for international and local clients. Then I was in-house counsel, general counsel for a tech company, and then went to go be a partner in a venture fund that was very tech oriented, we invested and helped run a lot of tech plays and companies. And then I landed here now as a state regulator overseeing a lot of government regulation and a lot of what I have made a priority in my administration across various different platforms is a different subject matter, though, is sort of the balance between regulation and innovation.

\n

You know as state AGs we have a mandate to protect our citizens, our consumers, whether that's from violent crime or white collar crime or digital invasion and harm. How do we do that and not stifle innovation and hold technology companies at the same time accountable who may be getting too big and too powerful and level the playing field so that we truly have a fair market. All of those are types of things that state AGs do. You said it very, very well. We are a check and a balance from time to time against the federal government, whether that's executive level in the presidency, even Congress. State AGs, we may file lawsuits, and it can look political because, as you suggest from time to time, we have cases that one administration and it's a Democrat administration, you see Republican AGs, be very active in trying to hold them accountable. But, as you also alluded to and I think the majority of the work that we do, as state AGs is really national and collaborative. And when I say national, it's because it affects each and every one of our states that we come together and we want Washington to help us as a partner. The federal government is so powerful and affects so much of our lives, but often we will take, we think, a heavy handed role in policy that directly affects our constituents and states. So we put aside Democrat, Republican, independent labels come together in a bipartisan way and will often push back against federal overreach, regardless of who is in power at the federal level, Congress or executive branch, and then we will also collaborate on the business side of things.

\n
As state AGs we have a mandate to protect our citizens, our consumers, whether that's from violent crime or white collar crime or digital invasion and harm... How do we do that and not stifle innovation and hold technology companies, at the same time, accountable who may be getting too big and too powerful.
\n

As you mentioned, big tech data protection, we will come together. We have a national lawsuit against Facebook and we have a number of them against Google, I'm on the leadership team of one of those and I can tell you, we've been working on these Google cases for years. That's not to say Google is evil, and does everything wrong. They have been contributors and innovators to so many ways that have benefited society and improved our lives. But they have also, we believe, stifled a lot of competition and ended up hurting smaller businesses in our states. So as these things, affect our jurisdictions, we come together, whether it's on the opioid side to hold those who brought the opioid crisis to us to hold them accountable, and we did that back in the day with the tobacco companies, before my time, when state AGs banded together. So you're exactly on point where we can we try to come together to influence policy at the federal level, and we certainly do that locally at the state level. We are not policy makers we're policy enforcers and since we're tasked with enforcing laws, we want to make sure that laws that are passed are ones that are viable, feasible that we believe in, that we can enforce.

\n
The federal government is so powerful and affects so much of our lives, but often we will take, we think, a heavy handed role in policy that directly affects our constituents and states. So we put aside Democrat, Republican, independent labels come together in a bipartisan way and will often push back against federal overreach, regardless of who is in power at the federal level, Congress or executive branch.
\n

So all of those things come together and my emphasis has been on issues like fighting human trafficking, fighting the opioid epidemic, fighting mental behavioral health challenges that manifest themselves in things like teen and young adult suicide and working to get things like the 988 national number passed. Which we were successful and the Trump administration was able to just sign with Congress's passing of that bill. Things like that are really important to me. White collar fraud, technology issues where we find ways to encourage the private sector to lean in and help us solve these big social issues and try our best not to not to stifle innovation just because we can as government, because we have resources, we're trying to strike always that balance, Jim. I think that is a good intro to sort of the work that we do collaboratively as state AGs.

\n

Jim Schultz: If you can talk a little bit, you know just recently back in March I believe, you among 11 other states sued this administration, the Biden administration, over the executive order that sought to establish the social cost of greenhouse gases. And that was in all states involved, Republican attorneys general. And in that we saw during the Trump administration that the cost set was taken down to seven dollars per metric ton from fifty dollars during the Obama administration, and that the Biden administration is now going to temporarily return to that while they look at this issue and determine what the cost is going to be going forward. Could you talk a little bit about that case and the impact and what drives you to get involved in those cases? And you talked about overreach earlier, I imagine that's a piece and that's the basis upon which you're pushing out this lawsuit and signed onto this lawsuit. Could you talk about that a little bit?

\n

Sean Reyes: Sure, and there are structural challenges, there are constitutional issues, we believe, but from a policy standpoint, maybe I can give some context and this harkens back to the earlier years of my service and tenure, back in 2013 to 15 and 16, when during the Obama administration, that administration, Vice President Biden, they rolled out some incredibly ambitious regulatory policies, and I'll give you two examples. One was the EPA and clean water the waters of the United States, which would have ceded a lot of state autonomy to the federal government in a way that was unprecedented, and we as state AGs felt like that was far too much of an encroachment. It's not that we believe that we only as states should be involved in management, we just believe that we should be involved in some meaningful way, and so we're very open to collaboration, true federalism, if you will, states and federal government working together, but too often what the federal government calls cooperative federalism, which we believe is sort of a misnomer. It's it's a way of saying a federal cram down, you do exactly what we dictate or you'll have no say or participation or federal funds tied to something else are predicated on this. We saw that and we fought back in the waters of the United States. We won at every level and we're able to rein in that what we again felt was overly ambitious attempt to take away power from the states.

\n

Similarly, the Clean Power Plan was one where there were the federal government attempting to regulate far beyond any boundaries that had ever existed before in the fence line. We knew why they were doing that, they had certain policy goals in mind, but to do that, we felt was cheating. Let's achieve those in ways that are cooperative that we worked out through Congress that we have states be involved in, and this social cost of carbon policy, I feel and many of my colleagues feel falls in that same realm. The notion that the federal government can come in and dictate terms, regulate, take over policy based on a somewhat amorphous definition of the social cost of carbon; and if you talk to many experts, even those who are Democrat friends, they're having a hard time articulating what that exactly means. It's subject to interpretation of those who are in power and running things that could be just about anything that a business does, could possibly impact the carbon footprint, could possibly impact the environment in some way or another. And we just felt like that was a bridge way too far. So, again, we're not at all opposed to debating these issues, to working together with the federal government to come up with reasonable policies. We recognize that we're not going to agree on everything, but that's how our country was set up so that we would have a give and take, not just between branches of government, judicial, legislative and executive, but also between federal and state. That federalism aspects in our minds far too often digresses to just the federal government, ending up taking too much power and control over the everyday lives of average Americans, and that's why we filed that suit, Jim.

\n
We're not at all opposed to debating these issues, to working together with the federal government to come up with reasonable policies. We recognize that we're not going to agree on everything, but that's how our country was set up so that we would have a give and take, not just between branches of government, judicial, legislative and executive, but also between federal and state.
\n

Jim Schultz: Likewise, General, you took on the Biden Administration on the on the decision to halt oil and gas leases on federal lands. I imagine that has some serious impact on a state like yours, is that right?

\n

Sean Reyes: Tremendous, billions of dollars. That fund, by the way, very bipartisan programs, education, environmental programs and local government. By unilaterally acting this way, they are impacting our ability to protect and to serve our citizens. What people don't realize in states out in the west, like Utah, they said, well, it's just limited to these are federal leases only on public lands, on federal lands. Well, 60 percent of Utah, are federal lands, Jim. And then so many of those lands are interspersed amongst state lands and private property that even if it's only 60 percent, there's a checkerboard of impact that effectively shuts down development. Again, this tax base and this opportunity for us to really have autonomy, to be able to run our state in a responsible way that benefits all Utahns, whether they're Democrats, Republicans, libertarians, it doesn't matter. So this, again, flows more into the camp of the federal government trying to dictate to the states and take away our ability for our local businesses, our small businesses who are reliant on that sector; so much of our infrastructure that's reliant: education and otherwise, those programs. Again, we, not just the state of Utah, but the support of Native American tribes in the state, and others who all benefit and who have invested a lot into the infrastructure for these types of leases, we can go into the technical aspects, the legal aspects of it, it violates federal law that mandates quarterly leases. But again, in terms of the policy and why these things mean so much to us at the state level and why our federal delegation is fighting so hard against these types of policies, Jim, that's it. I don't think we're unreasonable. Again, we're not didactic. This is not a zero sum game. One or the other is just we have to be able to come together and reason together and come up with policies that all stakeholders are having a say in. So whether it's Utah, the monument designations at our level social cost of carbon, whether it's HR1 when it comes to voting or these moratoria on leases and many other issues, these are national issues at one level and also very local issues as well, Jim.

\n

Jim Schultz: General, thank you so much for coming on. We're just about going to wrap up, and I just want to thank you for taking the time to coming on Eyes on Washington with Holland & Knight and myself. We'd love to have you back on some other time, and thank you for all the good work you're doing as a public servant.

\n

Sean Reyes: Thank you, Jim, thanks Holland & Knight. And regardless of whether your state AG, whoever you are out there listening, is a Democrat or Republican, send him a note of thanks. They're working hard. We work a lot together across party lines and we get a lot done. I know they're working hard to protect you, so be nice to your AG. Thanks, Jim.

\n

To hear more about what state attorneys general are prioritizing across the country, listen to the other episodes in this series

","link":{"label":"Podcast: A Conversation with Attorney General Sean Reyes","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/podcast-a-conversation-with-attorney-general-sean-reyes","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/podcast-a-conversation-with-attorney-general-sean-reyes","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/03/media_conversation_with_nm_chief_deputy_still.jpg","alt":"Conversations with State Attorneys General - Episode 2: New Mexico Chief Deputy Attorney General Tania Maestas and Vermont Attorney General TJ Donovan"},"description":"

In the second episode of our Public Policy & Regulation Group's \"Conversations with State Attorneys General\" podcast series, attorney Stephen Cobb talks with Chief Deputy Attorney General of New Mexico, Tania Maestas, and Attorney General of Vermont, TJ Donovan, about their positions on data privacy and how it impacts their respective states. Generals Maestas and Donovan discuss the bipartisan issue of data security and how the United States can set firm protections without creating a patchwork of laws from state-to-state.

","link":{"label":"Podcast: A Conversation with Chief Deputy Attorney General Tania Maestas and Attorney General TJ Donovan","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/03/podcast-a-conversation-with-new-mexico-state-ag-and-vermont-state-ag","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/03/podcast-a-conversation-with-new-mexico-state-ag-and-vermont-state-ag","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/02/mediaaaronfordstill.jpg","alt":"PodcastTitleSlide"},"description":"

In the first episode of our Public Policy & Regulation Group's \"Conversations with State Attorneys General\" podcast series, attorney Stephen Cobb talks with the 34th Attorney General of Nevada, Aaron Ford, about his background and demystifies what a state attorneys general job actually entails. General Ford shares what helps him drive to make changes in his community while giving us a glimpse at the man behind the law.

","link":{"label":"Podcast: A Conversation with Attorney General Aaron Ford","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/02/podcast-a-conversation-with-nevada-state-attorney-general-aaron-ford","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/02/podcast-a-conversation-with-nevada-state-attorney-general-aaron-ford","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/12/media_postelectionbriefingprogram_still.jpg","alt":"Opening slide still"},"description":"

Holland & Knight's experienced lobbyists and attorneys are focusing on the growing role of State Attorneys General. Partner Stephen Cobb, the former deputy attorney general of Virginia, Partner Jim Schultz, the former senior associate White House counsel and Partner Bill Shepherd, Florida's former statewide prosecutor, share their unique perspectives as they take a look back on 2020 and the election results before drawing conclusions on what to expect going into 2021.

\n

View the presentation materials.
\n
\nDuration: 58:10

","link":{"label":"Post Election Briefing - State Attorneys General","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/12/post-election-briefing-state-attorneys-general","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/12/post-election-briefing-state-attorneys-general","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/08/mediaevansfox5still.jpg","alt":""},"description":"

Attorney Jake Evans was interviewed by Fox 5 Atlanta to discuss the Georgia State Ethics Commission's decision to fine Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard $6,500 for failing to disclose his role as a CEO for two non-profits. By unanimous vote, the Ethics Commission accepted a consent agreement that found Mr. Howard violated campaign finance laws.

\n

Duration 2:33

","link":{"label":"State Ethics Commission fines Fulton District Attorney Paul Howard $6,500","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/08/state-ethics-commission-fines-fulton-district-attorney","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/08/state-ethics-commission-fines-fulton-district-attorney","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2019/04/media_business_developers_network_still.jpg","alt":""},"description":"

Public Policy & Regulation attorney Jake Evans was featured on a podcast titled \"Business Developers Network,\" produced by Pro Business Channel. Mr. Evans discussed what it takes to succeed as an attorney, specifically addressing networking opportunities and innovation within the industry, and provided advice to young attorneys beginning their careers.

\n

Duration: 35:57

","link":{"label":"Business Developers Network","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2019/04/business-developers-network","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2019/04/business-developers-network","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2019/01/georgia-legislator-tries-to-overturn-his-second-election-loss/media_jakeevansmultimediapost_still.jpg","alt":"JakeEvansMultiPostStill"},"description":"

Public Policy & Regulation attorney Jake Evans was featured in a news report by FOX 5 Atlanta as he represented a Georgia legislator, Dan Gasaway, in attempts to overturn election results in House District 28. On two separate occasions, Mr. Gasaway lost his election by small margins, and Mr. Evans argued in court that this was a result of improper voting by individuals living outside of the district.

\n

Duration: 3:30

","link":{"label":"Georgia Legislator Tries to Overturn His Second Election Loss","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2019/01/georgia-legislator-tries-to-overturn-his-second-election-loss","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2019/01/georgia-legislator-tries-to-overturn-his-second-election-loss","target":"","rel":""}}]">

狗万软件

Holland & Knight Alert"],"link":{"label":"House Expected to Consider Senate-Amended FISA Reauthorization Bill on May 27; Passage Unclear","url":"/en/insights/publications/2020/05/house-expected-to-consider-senate-amended-fisa-reauthorization-bill","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2020/05/house-expected-to-consider-senate-amended-fisa-reauthorization-bill","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":"/-/media/images/icons/capital.png","alt":"Capital Building"},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"May 18, 2020","readingtime":"4 Minutes","source":null},{"metaData":["Holland & Knight Alert"],"link":{"label":"Oversight and Investigations Related to COVID-19 Pandemic Spending and Federal Programs","url":"/en/insights/publications/2020/04/oversight-and-investigations-related-to-covid19","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2020/04/oversight-and-investigations-related-to-covid19","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":"/-/media/images/icons/capital.png","alt":"Capital Building"},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"APRIL 24, 2020 (*UPDATED MAY 11, 2020*)","readingtime":"15 Minutes","source":null},{"metaData":["Holland & Knight Alert"],"link":{"label":"Massachusetts Court Denies Temporary Restraining Order in Adult-Use Marijuana COVID-19 Case","url":"/en/insights/publications/2020/04/massachusetts-court-denies-temporary-restraining-order","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2020/04/massachusetts-court-denies-temporary-restraining-order","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":"/-/media/images/icons/insurance/gavel.svg","alt":"gavel"},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"April 23, 2020","readingtime":"7 Minutes","source":null},{"metaData":["Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University"],"link":{"label":"California Getting in Its Own Way","url":"/en/insights/publications/2019/12/california-getting-in-its-own-way","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2019/12/california-getting-in-its-own-way","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"December 2019","readingtime":"15 Minutes","source":null},{"metaData":["Holland & Knight Government Contracts Blog"],"link":{"label":"Holiday Ethics Guidance for Federal Contractors","url":"/en/insights/publications/2019/12/holiday-ethics-guidance-for-federal-contractors","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2019/12/holiday-ethics-guidance-for-federal-contractors","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"December 5, 2019","readingtime":"5 Minutes","source":null},{"metaData":["Tax Notes Federal"],"link":{"label":"Altera Upends Established Roles of Government Branches","url":"/en/insights/publications/2019/10/altera-upends-established-roles-of-government-branches","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2019/10/altera-upends-established-roles-of-government-branches","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"October 7, 2019","readingtime":"","source":null}]">

新闻和标题

The Hill","In the Headlines"],"link":{"label":"Top Trump-Era Lobbyist: 'It's not Going to be the Same'","url":"/en/news/intheheadlines/2021/01/top-trump-era-lobbyist-its-not-going-to-be-the-same","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/news/intheheadlines/2021/01/top-trump-era-lobbyist-its-not-going-to-be-the-same","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":"/-/media/images/icons/capital.png","alt":"Capital Building"},"image":null,"date":"January 29, 2021","readingtime":null,"source":null},{"metaData":["","Savannah Business Journal","In the Headlines"],"link":{"label":"Georgia Launches Campaign Finance University","url":"/en/news/intheheadlines/2021/01/georgia-launches-campaign-finance-university","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/news/intheheadlines/2021/01/georgia-launches-campaign-finance-university","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":"/-/media/images/icons/capital.png","alt":"Capital Building"},"image":null,"date":"January 11, 2021","readingtime":null,"source":null},{"metaData":["","","Press Release"],"link":{"label":"New Holland & Knight Study Reveals Epidemic of Anti-Housing CEQA Lawsuits ","url":"/en/news/pressreleases/2019/12/new-holland-knight-study-reveals-epidemic-of-antihousing-ceqa","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/news/pressreleases/2019/12/new-holland-knight-study-reveals-epidemic-of-antihousing-ceqa","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":"/-/media/images/icons/insurance/commericalpropertyre.svg","alt":"buildings"},"image":null,"date":"December 18, 2019","readingtime":null,"source":null}]">