List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating

Final
Amicus Document
or Letter File Name AG# Disposition Date ?
Amicus PA v Trump; CA v Azar (MA) 2019-0238603-A 01/07/2019 Yes
Amicus Brackeen v Zinke (CA) 2019-0238979-A 01/08/2019 Yes
Letter NLRB Standards for Joint-Employer Status (NY PA) 2019-0239629-A 01/11/2019 Yes
Letter FTC Id Theft Rules 16 CFR 681 (OR) 2019-0240777-A 02/04/2019 Yes
Amicus Cochise Consultancy v US ex rel Hunt (IN) 2019-0241342-A 02/05/2019 Yes
Amicus Crista Ramos v Kirstjen Nielsen (CA) 2019-0242811-A 02/06/2019 Yes
Letter NAL and Sandbox Policy (NY) 2019-0240712-A 02/07/2019 No
Letter DOJ Wire Act Opinion Letter (WV) 2019-0242711-A 02/13/2019 Yes
Amicus Al Otro Lado v Nielsen (CA) 2019-0241337-A 02/19/2019 Yes
Letter Traced Act Support (MS)(NE)(NH)(NC) 2019-0242680-A 02/25/2019 Yes
Amicus Adams, Drew v School Board of St. Johns Co (NY WA) 2018-0234186-A 02/27/2019 Yes
Amicus NC DOJ v Kaestner Trust (MN) 2019-0242808-B 02/27/2019 Yes
Amicus Rucho v Common Cause (18-422) (OR) 2019-0245227-A 03/07/2019 Yes
Letter Arctic Coastal Plain and Gas Leasing Program (WA) 2019-0245062-A 03/11/2019 Yes
Amicus Perryman v Romero (18-1074)(AZ)(easysaver) 2019-0246433-A 03/14/2019 Yes
Amicus Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC (14-1271) (OR) 2019-0245625-A 03/15/2019 Yes
Letter Payday Delay Rule (NC) 2019-0245094-A 03/18/2019 No
Amicus Planned Parenthoods v USDHHS (18-35920)(PA) 2019-0246424-A 03/18/2019 Yes
Amicus Baltimore v. Trump (FAM) (CA) (D.C.) 2019-0246095-A 03/20/2019 Yes
Amicus PA and NJ v President (3rd Cir 17-3752) (MA) 2019-0246418-A 03/22/2019 Yes
Amicus Taggart v. Lorenzen (18-489) (CA) 2019-0245650-A 03/25/2019 Yes
Letter DOE Enforcement Letter - student debt (WA) 2019-0247103-A 03/29/2019 Yes
Amicus Dep't of Commerce v New York (CA) (18-966) 2019-0247460-A 04/01/2019 Yes
Letter SNAP Benefits comment letter (DC) 2019-0247440-A 04/01/2019 Yes
Amicus EMW Women's Surgical Center (NV) 2019-0247611-A 04/02/2019 Yes
Amicus Jackson v Currier (18-60868) (CA) 2019-0247609-A 04/09/2019 Yes
StatemenSupporting DC Statehood 2019-0248816-A 4/15/2019 NA
won't be filed until
Letter SAFE Banking Act 2019-0247504-A 5/1/2019 Not yet
 List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating

Amicus or Disposition Final

Letter File Name AG# File Facts Date Doc?
The amicus briefs support Pennsylvania's and California's motions for preliminary
injunctions in the contraceptive mandate cases in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and the Northern District of California, respectively. Pennsylvania
and California are seeking to enjoin Final Rules issued by the federal government
that would exempt most employers with moral or religious objections to
contraception from the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate. The Final
Rules supersede Interim Final Rules issued in October 2017. In an earlier round of
litigation, the district courts in both cases issued nationwide preliminary
injunctions applicable to the Interim Final Rules. The federal government appealed
both decisions. The 9th Circuit upheld the Northern District of California injunction
but limited it to the original plaintiff States in that case on the ground that there
was insufficient evidence of nationwide impact in the record. The 3rd Circuit has
not issued a decision and the appeal there has been stayed. Notably, both district-
PA v Trump; CA v court injunctions will expire/become moot when the Final Rules go into effect on
Amicus Azar (MA) 2019-0238603-A January 14, 2019. 01/07/2019 Yes
In its amicus brief, California urges the Fifth Circuit to preserve the Indian Child
Brackeen v Zinke Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. 1901-63 (ICWA), which governs the adoption and foster
Amicus (CA) 2019-0238979-A care placement of Indian children. 01/08/2019 Yes
We write on behalf of the states of ... to oppose the proposed rulemaking by the
National Labor Relations Board (the "Board") to change the joint-employer
NLRB Standards standard, which governs the status and liability of an employer that shares control
for Joint- over the terms and conditions of workers' employment with another employer.
Employer Status Standard for Determining Joint-Employer Status, 83 Fed. Reg. 46681 (Sept. 14,
Letter (NY PA) 2019-0239629-A 2018) (the "NPRM"). 01/11/2019 Yes
In December 2018, the FTC asked for public comment on whether to retain and/or
amend its identity theft rules, described in Kathy's recommendation below. The
FTC first implemented these rules in 2011, pursuant to the Fair and Accurate
FTC Id Theft Rules Credit Transactions Act of 2003; the request for comment is part of the agency's
Letter 16 CFR 681 (OR) 2019-0240777-A periodic review of its regulations. 02/04/2019 Yes

Page 2 of 13
 List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating

Amicus or Disposition Final

Letter File Name AG# File Facts Date Doc?

The case involves the interpretation of the False Claim Act?s statute of limitations,
and the brief will oppose the petitioner?s attempt to significantly limit the
limitations period for claims brought by private parties under the Act. States?
Medicaid programs frequently draw them into False Claims Act litigation, and
many States (by Indiana?s count, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, IA, LA, MD, MA,
MI, MN, MT, NV, NH, NM, NY, NC, NJ, OK, RI, TN, TX, VA, VT, WA, and the District
of Columbia), have adopted their own statutes that are adapted from the federal
Cochise False Claims Act. For that reason, States have an interest in how the Supreme
Consultancy v US Court interprets this provision. Indiana will file the brief on Wednesday, February
Amicus ex rel Hunt (IN) 2019-0241342-A 6, so the deadline to join the brief is noon on Tuesday, February 5 02/05/2019 Yes

The State of California has prepared an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit in support
of plaintiffs who are residents of the United States based on a temporary
protected status (TPS). The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, enjoining
Crista Ramos v preliminarily the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, from
Kirstjen Nielsen terminating the designation of four countries as ones from whom a resident could
Amicus (CA) 2019-0242811-A obtain a TPS status: Haiti, Sudan, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. 02/06/2019 Yes
The revised letter was drafted by the NY AG (original version attached) and asks
the CFPB Director to rescind two proposed policies that would modify CFPB
oversight over certain aspects of the financial sector. Essentially, the NY AG's letter
claims that these proposed policies are wolves in sheep clothing and that the CFPB
should not allow financial companies to evade existing law by claiming they are
"fostering innovation." While many in the financial sector may support the new
proposed polices and encouraging responsible innovation in the consumer
financial marketplace is important, the letter proposes a more cautious and
deliberative regulatory approach through formal rulemaking. It points out that
NAL and Sandbox regulators should be wary of innovations in the financial sector until they can
Letter Policy (NY) 2019-0240712-A comprehensively evaluate the risks. 02/07/2019 No

Page 3 of 13
 List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating

Amicus or Disposition Final

Letter File Name AG# File Facts Date Doc?
Letter details serious concerns regarding the Office of Legal Counsel?s recent
opinion, "Reconsidering Whether the Wire Act Applies to Non-Sports Gambling"
("Opinion"). Respectfully requesting that the Department extend for at least an
additional 90 days the current window for compliance. The Opinion reversed the
Department's prior, 2011 interpretation of the Wire Act's scope, which had
assured the States and other actors that 18 U.S.C. § 1084(a) prohibits only
interstate transmission of information regarding sporting events or contests. The
new Opinion, however, calls into question interstate transmissions related to all
bets or wagers, even where fully authorized under relevant state law. The
consequences of this interpretation are potentially quite broad. Under the
Opinion, conduct that was long understood to be legal now invites exposure to
severe criminal penalties. Further, the rationale in the Opinion is not limited to
online gaming; it also casts significant doubt on the continued vitality of multi-
state lottery games such as Powerball and Mega Millions, even though these
programs existed well before the earlier 2011 OLC opinion was issued, and even
though the vast majority of States participate in these offerings. The increasingly
interstate nature of internet and cellular transmissions means that even
traditionally in-state lotteries?those operated by a single State and open only to
players within the State?s borders?might be interpreted as running afoul of the
new Opinion as well. The loss of these programs would have devastating
consequences for our States. State-run and multi-state lotteries are a consistent
source of state revenue, representing many billions of dollars in annual funding
DOJ Wire Act used to fund vital state services such as schools and other educational initiatives,
Opinion Letter services for senior citizens, and infrastructure projects. We also have concerns
Letter (WV) 2019-0242711-A about the Opinion?s legal foundations. 02/13/2019 Yes

Page 4 of 13
 List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating

Amicus or Disposition Final

Letter File Name AG# File Facts Date Doc?

Like California, the State of Michigan provides many programs designed to assist
qualified asylees and refugees. For example, the Refugee Services Program under
the Michigan Office for New Americans in the Department of Licensing and
Regulatory Affairs administers federal refugee assistance programs for cash
assistance and medical assistance, as well as the Refugee Unaccompanied Minor
Program. And, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is
responsible for refugee health screenings and provides services for certain
undocumented children in Michigan's child welfare system. DHHS also has an
Al Otro Lado v Unaccompanied Refugee Minors program administered by the Office of Refugee
Amicus Nielsen (CA) 2019-0241337-A Services, which provides culturally appropriate foster 02/19/2019 Yes

Draft letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, &

Transportation in support of the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement
and Deterrence ("TRACED") Act. The current language of the bill in the Senate is
also attached. We believe that this legislation effectively addresses many of the
concerns raised by federal regulators, voice service providers, private businesses,
consumer advocacy groups, and other interested parties to combat illegal
Traced Act robocalls and spoofing, and we are heartened that it enables the telecom industry,
Support federal regulators, and our offices to take meaningful steps to abate the rapid
Letter (MS)(NE)(NH)(NC) 2019-0242680-A proliferation of these illegal and unwanted robocalls. 02/25/2019 Yes

Adams, Drew v School Board of St Johns County (NY WA) 11th Cir COA#: 18-13592
The States of New York and Washington are preparing an amicus brief in support
of a transgender student in the Eleventh Circuit in Adams v. School Board of St.
Adams, Drew v Johns County. At issue is "[w]hether the district court erred in ruling that the
School Board of school board's policy barring transgender boys and girls from using common
St. Johns Co (NY restrooms used by other boys and girls violates Title IX and the federal Equal
Amicus WA) 2018-0234186-A Protection Clause." The amicus brief will argue that the district court did not err. 02/27/2019 Yes
Minnesota drafted an amicus brief supporting NC on the merits in N.C. Dep't of
NC DOJ v Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Tr., 18-457 (U.S.). The question
Kaestner Trust presented is whether "the Due Process Clause prohibit[s] states from taxing trusts
Amicus (MN) 2019-0242808-B based on trust beneficiaries' in-state residency." 02/27/2019 Yes

Page 5 of 13
 List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating

Amicus or Disposition Final

Letter File Name AG# File Facts Date Doc?
The brief, drafted by Oregon, supports appellees in Rucho v. Common Cause, No,
18-422 (U.S. merits). The issue in the case is whether North Carolina's
congressional districting map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The
brief argues that the three-judge district court correctly struck down the map. The
brief further argues that the new districts have the effect of maximizing partisan
advantage, that there is no other justification for the districts, and, more broadly,
Rucho v Common that extreme partisan gerrymandering harms States and their citizens by
Cause (18-422) effectively insulating a political party from any realistic attempt by the populace to
Amicus (OR) 2019-0245227-A unseat it. 03/07/2019 Yes

As Congress and others have recognized, the Coastal Plain also likely contains
areas of oil and gas reserves. The proposed action would create a leasing program
to open the Coastal Plain for the first time to oil and gas development. Such
Arctic Coastal development will forever change the Coastal Plain landscape and the Arctic Refuge
Plain and Gas of which it is a part and will increase greenhouse gas emissions at a time when
Leasing Program many states are taking bold action to fight climate change by significantly reducing
Letter (WA) 2019-0245062-A greenhouse gas emissions." [pp. 2?3 (footnotes omitted).] 03/11/2019 Yes

This amicus, drafted by Arizona, supports the cert petition out of the Ninth Circuit
in Perryman v. Romero, No. 18-1074. The case involves a class action settlement
that pays $8.85 million to class counsel and $3 million in cy pres to California
colleges with ties to class counsel, while class members receive only $225,000 in
coupons. This amicus brief supports the Petitioner?s position that the Ninth
Circuit?s approach to cy pres in this case places consumers nationwide at risk by
blessing a class action settlement arrangement that allows class counsel and
Perryman v defendants to reach a mutually beneficial settlement that is detrimental to class
Romero (18- members. The amicus argues that argues that the Supreme Court?s guidance is
1074)(AZ)(easysa sorely needed on the acceptable contours of cy pres class action settlement
Amicus ver) 2019-0246433-A arrangements, and that cy pres class-action settlements should benefit consumers. 03/14/2019 Yes

Page 6 of 13
 List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating

Amicus or Disposition Final

Letter File Name AG# File Facts Date Doc?
Under the Clean Water Act, an applicant for a federal license for activity that may
result in a discharge into navigable waters must first seek a certification from
affected States that any discharge will comply with certain water quality
requirements. If a State denies certification, the federal license will not issue. But
Congress also sought to prevent States from delaying federal licensing by inaction,
providing that if the State fails to act on a certification request within one year of
receipt, the State waives the certification requirement. In this case, the applicant
and affected States entered into an agreement whereby the applicant would
withdraw and resubmit its certification request each year to restart the one-year
waiver clock, effectively giving the States more time. The question is whether the
Hoopa Valley statute permits this sort of arrangement (Oregon argues that it does), or whether
Tribe v. FERC (14- the States here waived their right to certify by not acting on the original request
Amicus 1271) (OR) 2019-0245625-A within one year. 03/15/2019 Yes
Last month the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking, proposing: (1) to rescind the ability-to-repay provisions of its 2017
Payday Rule, which requires lenders to consider borrowers' ability to repay when
making short-term loans and auto title loans ("Rescission Rule") ? which effectively
guts most of the Payday Rule; and (2) to delay the compliance date for the ability-
to-repay provisions for 15 months, from August 19, 2019 to November 20, 2020
("Delay Rule"). Comments on the Delay Rule are due on Monday, March 18.
Payday Delay (Comments on the Rescission Rule are due in mid-May, and D.C. and New Jersey
Letter Rule (NC) 2019-0245094-A are working on those.) 03/18/2019 No

Page 7 of 13
 List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating

Amicus or Disposition Final

Letter File Name AG# File Facts Date Doc?

This case involves the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program (TPP Program), created
by Congress in 2009 to reduce teen pregnancy through evidence-based programs
proven effective in reducing teen pregnancy. The TPP Program is a departure from
decades of funding abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that were found
ineffective, although they continue to be funded through separate appropriations.
In 2017, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began
terminating the five-year TPP Program grants awarded in 2015, and challenges
were filed. Federal courts declared the grant terminations unlawful and enjoined
them. HHS dismissed its appeals and, in 2018, issued two new "Funding
Planned Opportunity Announcements" (2018 FOAs). The 2018 FOAs invited applications for
Parenthoods v new TPP Program grants with award criteria focused on programs that promote
USDHHS (18- abstinence-only messages, rather than the statutorily required emphasis on
Amicus 35920)(PA) 2019-0246424-A evidence-based programs shown to be effective. 03/18/2019 Yes

The Attorneys General of the District of Columbia and California have partnered in
drafting this amicus in a federal district court in Maryland. The case involves
Baltimore's challenge to the Trump Administration's unlawful and harmful change
to the definition of "public charge" in the State Department's Foreign Affairs
Manual (FAM). "Public charge" involves a provision in immigration law that limits
who may come into the U.S. In January of 2018, the State Department amended
the FAM to allow consular officers to consider whether visa applicants or their
family members have received non-cash benefits such as free school lunches,
public health vaccinations, and Head Start. The former definition of "public
charge" explicitly prohibited consular officers from considering the use of such
Baltimore v. benefits. The Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss, and the amicus
Trump (FAM) supports Baltimore's opposition to the motion to dismiss by focusing on the harms
Amicus (CA) (D.C.) 2019-0246095-A to the States caused by the FAM change. 03/20/2019 Yes

Page 8 of 13
 List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating

Amicus or Disposition Final

Letter File Name AG# File Facts Date Doc?

This case is in the Third Circuit and Massachusetts has taken the lead in drafting
this amicus. The brief supports Pennsylvania?s and New Jersey?s challenge to the
final rules seeking to roll back the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care
Act. In the district court, Pennsylvania and New Jersey secured a nationwide
preliminary injunction of the final rule. DOJ appealed that issuance of the
preliminary injunction. The brief includes a table of state-specific estimations of
individuals eligible for state-funded contraceptive coverage. If Michigan joins, we
need to provide the following information for the table: (1) the number of insured,
PA and NJ v income-eligible women between the ages of 15 and 45; (2) the percent of
President (3rd Cir enrollees covered under a self-funded plan; and (3) the number of insured, income-
Amicus 17-3752) (MA) 2019-0246418-A eligible women between the ages of 15 and 45 in self-funded plans. 03/22/2019 Yes
Attached is an Amicus Memo describing the amicus brief California is preparing in
support of respondent on the merits in Taggart v. Lorenzen, 18-489 (U.S.). The
case concerns when a creditor may be held in civil contempt for violating a
bankruptcy discharge order. Specifically, does a creditor's good-faith belief that
the discharge injunction does not apply preclude a finding of civil contempt? The
amicus brief will argue that where a state (as creditor) reasonably reaches a good
faith determination that the discharge does not apply to its contemplated action,
it should be free to proceed without fear of later court disagreement and
contempt. Among other things, the amicus brief will describe the methods and
Taggart v. practices that States have in place to learn of and interpret bankruptcy discharge
Lorenzen (18- orders, and to apply complex discharge exemptions, as they carry out their taxing
Amicus 489) (CA) 2019-0245650-A and regulatory responsibilities. 03/25/2019 Yes
[T]he reason for sending the letter is Washington's (and other States) concern that
the DOE has stopped sharing student loan borrower information with law
enforcement agencies, including an number of attorney general departments.
Twenty State Attorneys General (not including Michigan) sent a July 13, 2018
letter to Secretary DeVos outlining the concerns surrounding the DOE's decision to
unilaterally cease sharing information. (Middle Email Attachment, NJ/WA Privacy
DOE Enforcement Act Letter.) The primary concern is that information sharing ?is vital to protect
Letter - student consumers from illegal, unfair, abusive, or deceptive practices, including
Letter debt (WA) 2019-0247103-A inappropriate collection practices. 03/29/2019 Yes

Page 9 of 13
 List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating

Amicus or Disposition Final

Letter File Name AG# File Facts Date Doc?
Sending letter in support of the amicus brief that California will file in support of
New York in the U.S. Supreme Court. California will be filing an amicus brief in
support of New York on April 1, 2019, but has decided not circulate that brief for
sign-ons. In the case, the Court asked the following questions: (1) Whether the
district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce
from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the
ground that the secretary?s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action
under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative
record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by
compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a
strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the
Dep't of administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally
Commerce v New forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary?s decision to add a citizenship
York (CA) (18- question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S.
Amicus 966) 2019-0247460-A Constitution. 04/01/2019 Yes

Page 10 of 13
 List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating

Amicus or Disposition Final

Letter File Name AG# File Facts Date Doc?

In 1996, Congress limited the receipt of SNAP benefits to 3 months in a 36-month

period (time limit) for ABAWDs who are not working, participating in, and
complying with the requirements of a work program for 20 hours or more each
week, or a workfare program. However, the 1996 welfare reform law gave states
the ability to request a waiver of the time limit if the state or area within the state
had an unemployment rate above 10 percent or did not have a sufficient number
of jobs. The USDA has long given state great flexibility in requesting waivers. A
year after the 1996 law was enacted, Congress added more flexibility for states to
waive the time limit in non-waived areas by allotting exemptions that states could
use or carry over to the next fiscal year. As you may know, the 115th Congress
considered making work requirements for SNAP benefits stricter, and limiting the
availability of waivers and exemptions, but most of those changes were rejected in
the final 2018 Farm Bill. On the same day that President Trump signed the Farm
Bill, Secretary Purdue announced a proposed rule that adopted language virtually
identical to the language that was rejected by Congress. The Proposed Rule would
limit States' flexibility in waiving the time limit even if the local labor market
conditions do not provide sufficient jobs for the ABAWD population. We are urging
the Department to withdraw the rule. Few states still have statewide waivers of
the time limit, but many states currently have area waivers. Even if your state does
SNAP Benefits not currently have a waiver in place, the Proposed Rule will impact your state's
comment letter ability to request waivers in the future. I have attached the most current list of
Letter (DC) 2019-0247440-A states with and without waivers for your reference. 04/01/2019 Yes
Amicus brief to support affirmance of the district court?s order finding a Kentucky
law (and related regulation) regulating abortion services unconstitutional under
the 14th Amendment. The district court found that the law places an undue
burden on women in Kentucky in exercising their right to terminate a previable
pregnancy. As a practical matter, the law would require the closure of
Plaintiff/Appellee EMW, the only abortion provider in the state. We address two
issues in the brief: (1) that the availability of abortion services in neighboring
EMW Women's states should not be a relevant factor in the undue-burden analysis; and (2) that
Surgical Center states may not use general health regulations to impose an undue burden on a
Amicus (NV) 2019-0247611-A woman?s right to access abortion services. 04/02/2019 Yes

Page 11 of 13
 List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating

Amicus or Disposition Final

Letter File Name AG# File Facts Date Doc?
This brief, drafted by California, supports Plaintiff-Appellee in Jackson Women's
Health Organization v. Dobbs (State Health Officer for Mississippi Dept of Health)
in the 5th Circuit. (Note: In the updates, we have referred to this case as Jackson
Women's Health v Currier, but it appears that a new state official was substituted.)
At issue is the constitutionality of Mississippi's ban on abortions after the 15th
week. The ban makes an exception in the case of medical emergency or severe
fetal abnormality. The district court held that the ban on those abortions is
unconstitutional. The amicus brief supports that ruling, and argues that the amici
State's interests are served by ensuring access to abortion, particularly with
respect to vulnerable populations, who bear the heaviest burden when access to
abortions is restricted. Because Mississippi's asserted interest is in "protecting the
health of women," a focus of the amicus brief is information demonstrating that
Jackson v Currier States have many ways in which States can further women's health without
Amicus (18-60868) (CA) 2019-0247609-A restricting abortion. 04/09/2019 Yes
The District’s over 700,000 residents work hard, raise families, and pay the highest
federal taxes per capita, and yet they are deprived of the fundamental right to
participate meaningfully in our representative democracy. The District of Columbia
deserves a voice in this country’s legislature and should be able to govern itself
like any other state. The District’s residents deserve equal voting rights and
autonomy under the law. We support Statehood for the District of Columbia and
Comment Supporting DC Stat2019-0248816-A urge passage of H.R. 51 to accomplish this goal. 4/15/2019 NA

Page 12 of 13
 List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating

Amicus or Disposition Final

Letter File Name AG# File Facts Date Doc?

This bipartisan letter is led by Colorado, the District of Columbia, Nevada, and
North Dakota and is directed to various congressional leaders, including the
speaker of the house and majority and minority leaders. It involves H.R. 1595,
referred to as the "Secure And Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2019" or the SAFE
Banking Act of 2019." The Act creates protections for depository institutions that
provide financial services to cannabis-related legitimate businesses and service
providers for such businesses. The letter urges Congress to advance legislation
that would allow States that have legalized the medical or recreational use of
marijuana to bring that commerce into the banking system. The letter explains
that because the federal government classifies marijuana as an illegal substance,
financial institutions are hampered in their ability to provide services to state-
licensed cannabis businesses and companies that provide services and products to
those businesses. It advocates for a flexible banking system that addresses the won't be
needs of these businesses and the demands of our economy, while still protecting filed until
Letter SAFE Banking Act 2019-0247504-A the interests of the federal government. 5/1/2019

Page 13 of 13