Tag Archives: Attorney General Lisa Madigan

Madigan Moves On Travel Ban

Jul 18, 2017 | Web Team
FILE – In this Aug. 21, 2014 file photo, Illinois Attorney Gen. Lisa Madigan speaks at a news conference, in Chicago. Madigan’s office has issued an opinion stating that privately transmitted emails about government business are subject to disclosure in a case involving Chicago police officers’ discussion of the Laquan McDonald shooting. The binding opinion by Madigan follows quickly on a May Cook County Circuit Court ruling that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s emails aren’t automatically exempt from disclosure even though sent on private devices. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green, File)

By Nick Gale, WLS-AM 890 News

(CHICAGO) — Attorney General Lisa Madigan, along with 15 other attorneys general, today filed a new amicus brief in the Hawaii travel ban litigation, opposing the administration’s application to stay last week’s district court decision that the ban should not prevent grandparents and other close relatives of United States residents from entering the country.

“The court agreed that grandparents are an integral part of any family,” Madigan said. “I stand with my counterparts in fighting to ensure families are not needlessly torn apart by the administration’s discriminatory action.”

In June, the United States Supreme Court held that nationwide injunctions entered against the travel ban by two courts should remain in place with respect to persons having a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” including persons having a “close familial relationship” to a United States resident. The administration interpreted the Supreme Court ruling to mean that certain family members, including grandparents, were banned.

Earlier this month, Hawaii filed a motion in State of Hawaii and Ismail Elshikh v. Donald Trump, et al. to clarify the scope of the remaining injunction in that case, supported by a coalition of attorneys general. While the district court initially declined to address that motion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals observed that Hawaii could seek injunctive relief from the district court on the question of how “close familial relationship” can be defined.

Last week, Hawaii filed a motion seeking, among other things, to enforce the district court’s preliminary injunction, supported by an amicus brief led by the same coalition of attorneys general, and argued that the administration too narrowly interpreted “close familial relationship.” On Thursday, the district court partly granted that motion, interpreting the term “close familial relationship” to include grandparents and other close relatives beyond the nuclear family. Today Madigan and the other attorneys general argue that the Supreme Court should leave that district court ruling in place.

The attorneys general wrote:

“The federal government’s cramped view of what counts as a ‘close familial relationship’ is also contradicted by both common experience and decades of social science research.”

“Amici have a strong interest in plaintiffs’ challenge to this Executive Order because many of its provisions have threatened—indeed, have already caused—substantial harm to our residents, communities, hospitals, universities, and businesses while courts continue to adjudicate the Order’s lawfulness. The nationwide preliminary injunction initially entered by the district court in this case, along with the nationwide injunction entered in Trump v. IRAP, substantially mitigated the harm threatened by the Order. And this Court’s decision to leave important aspects of those injunctions in place continues to provide critical protection to the state interests endangered by the Order. Accordingly, the amici States have a strong interest in ensuring that the protection provided by the remaining portions of the injunction is not diminished by an interpretation that is inconsistent with the meaning and purpose of this Court’s directives.”

“In sum, the balance of the equities here tips decidedly in favor of denying the federal government’s request for a stay. While defendants have identified no appreciable harm that the district court’s July 13 order will cause to the federal government’s interests during the brief period for which the Order will be effective, a stay of the July 13 order would allow irreparable harm to be imposed on the amici States and our residents. The status quo should be preserved while this litigation continues.”

Attorney General Madigan has condemned the federal immigration executive orders and has filed 11 amicus briefs in five separate lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the travel ban executive orders.

Joining Madigan in filing today’s brief are the attorneys general from: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia.

Copyright 2017 WLS-AM News​

Madigan Takes On FCC

Jul 18, 2017 | Web Team
FILE – In this Aug. 21, 2014 file photo, Illinois Attorney Gen. Lisa Madigan speaks at a news conference, in Chicago. Madigan’s office has issued an opinion stating that privately transmitted emails about government business are subject to disclosure in a case involving Chicago police officers’ discussion of the Laquan McDonald shooting. The binding opinion by Madigan follows quickly on a May Cook County Circuit Court ruling that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s emails aren’t automatically exempt from disclosure even though sent on private devices. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green, File)

By Nick Gale, WLS-AM 890 News

(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Lisa Madigan led a coalition of 13 other attorneys general to oppose the rollback of critical net neutrality protections by the Federal Communications Commission.

In comments submitted to the FCC today, Madigan and the other attorneys general argue that the FCC must ensure open access to the internet and the continued equal access to all content providers, which can only be upheld through the principles of an open internet, or net neutrality.

“The current Open Internet rules were based on the premise that consumers expect and deserve an open and transparent Internet and that their right to access their chosen content without interference from their service provider should be protected. The existing rules recognize that the Internet has become an essential service in our society, and that role could be compromised by allowing private companies, many of which have conflicts of interest, to dictate the terms of consumers’ access to and use of the Internet. Consumers expect transparency and fairness from their Internet service when they go online, and those expectations should be reflected in the FCC’s rules,” the attorneys general stated in their comments.

Madigan and the other attorneys general emphasized the role that net neutrality and non-discrimination principles play in furthering vigorous competition and innovation online, enabling startup businesses an equal platform to provide new content to consumers at the same speed as established providers. Without net neutrality, Madigan said, Internet Service Providers could charge content providers for priority treatment, or access to an internet “fast lane.”

“Consumers’ free access to third-party sites and mobile applications has allowed Internet service to become an integral part of everyday life. Just as consumers expect that they will be able to call any number through their telephone company, they expect that they will be able to reach any website through their ISP. Without enforceable rules assuring that their ISPs will deliver all content and services as requested, there are no guarantees that consumers will not be deprived of the freedom they now enjoy when they go online,” the comments stated.

In 2015, the FCC took two actions to protect consumers from interference when they use the internet: it classified fixed and mobile broadband internet access service as a telecommunications service, treating it like a common carrier, and it adopted Open Internet rules. These rules prevent ISPs from blocking access to internet sites, slowing down or “throttling” speeds, or accepting payment for priority delivery. The rules also ban unreasonable actions that interfere with consumer use of the internet and require disclosure of policies affecting their network management practices.

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the FCC’s 2015 Order in its entirety in United States Telecom Association v. FCC. However, the FCC’s new chairman has initiated a proceeding to revisit these rules, and comments are due today. The FCC argues, without providing any support, that the rules are burdensome and unnecessary and have reduced investment.

The FCC proposes to roll back the classification of ISPs as common carriers and change or eliminate the rules that guarantee an open internet. Madigan said without these rules, ISPs will be free to favor their own content over third-party sites, and consumers will lose internet freedom to visit and obtain content from any site of the consumer’s choice without interference.

Joining Madigan in submitting comments were the attorneys general from: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia, as well as Hawaii’s Office of Consumer Protection.

Copyright 2017 WLS-AM News

Latest Local News