Virginia
17 states and trade group sue California over plastics packaging law
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A coalition of 17 states and a trade association representing U.S. wholesalers and distributors have sued California to block the enforcement of a stringent recycling law that aims to reduce plastic packaging waste.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court, argues that California’s recently finalized regulations that will gradually require companies to scale back single-use plastics and ensure all packaging is recycling or compostable should be struck down. The plaintiffs called the regulations “onerous mandates” that will cause steep price increases in everyday necessities that will be passed on, at least in part, to consumers.
“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country. If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities,” Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, who led the coalition, said in a news release.
The law, called the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was enacted in 2022.
“Virtually every product packaged or shipped in plastic containers, as well as a significant number of other types of packaging materials that merely incorporate plastics, fall into the Act’s remarkable sweep,” the lawsuit said.
The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, which represents companies that import and distribute goods in California, also joined the lawsuit.
“California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Eric Hoplin, the trade association’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”
The lawsuit argues the law violates both the U.S. and California constitutions. It asks the court to declare California’s law invalid and unenforceable, and halt its implementation.
The lawsuit names as defendants Zoe Heller, director of California’s recycling agency known as CalRecycle, and the Circular Action Alliance, a nonprofit involved with implementing the law.
Melanie Turner, a spokesperson for CalRecycle, said in an emailed statement that the agency does not comment on pending litigation and that it remained focused on implementing the law.
The alliance said in a statement that it was aware of the lawsuit and closely monitoring developments while at the same time working to implement the law’s “ambitious goals.”
In a May news release announcing regulations under the law, state officials said the changes would fight plastics pollution while protecting the interests of taxpayers and local governments.
“California is shifting the responsibility of managing single-use plastic and packaging onto the producers. New packaging reforms lower waste costs for communities and decrease garbage and pollution across the state,” Environmental Protection Secretary Yana Garcia said in a statement. “This approach pushes producers to innovate and design packaging that truly supports a circular economy.”
Joining Nebraska in the lawsuit were 16 other states with Republican attorneys general: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.
Environmental groups also have sued over the law. A coalition that included the Natural Resources Defense Council recently filed a complaint over what it said in a news release were “weakened” final regulations for the “landmark” law.
Minnesota
6 convictions found to be fair after review of embattled medical examiner’s testimony
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A Minnesota county prosecutor said Tuesday that convictions in six different murder cases were fair despite the involvement of an embattled medical examiner whose work was called into question after a federal judge described his testimony in one high-profile case as “unreliable, misleading and inaccurate.”
Tuesday’s announcement on findings related to seven murder convictions largely concludes a yearslong review of cases handled by Dr. Michael McGee, a former Ramsey County medical examiner. In one of the seven cases, which involved a more recent plea agreement, Ramsey County Attorney John Choi said the findings are being shared with the defense team and the legal process will continue to play out.
The county hired three medical experts to review McGee’s testimony and reports, and Choi said they primarily identified concerning stylistic word choices but not substantive issues with his conclusions.
In a few cases, criticisms of McGee’s findings were more substantive, but Choi said their review “ultimately determined that while the criticisms were valid, they did not go to the aspects of the case that were key to determining the defendant’s guilt.”
He said the convictions in six cases were “fair and just,” and there was no basis to vacate or modify them.
Phone calls and messages to numbers listed for McGee were not immediately returned.
The Ramsey County Attorney’s Office began to review McGee’s work across more than three decades after a federal judge threw out a death sentence for a man convicted in the 2003 killing of Dru Sjodin, North Dakota college student.
District Judge Ralph Erickson said evidence showed McGee was “guessing” on the witness stand in the murder trial for Alfonso Rodriguez Jr. and that he offered opinions during the trial that were not in his autopsy reports.
Rodriguez was later resentenced to life in prison.
The Ramsey County Attorney’s Office worked with lawyers at the nonprofit Prosecutors’ Center for Excellence and consulted with the Great North Innocence Project as part of the review, which cost the county $380,000.
The three medical experts, who Choi said had no connection to Minnesota or the cases, described McGee’s language as at times overreaching or misleading. For example, there were instances where McGee attributed a victim’s injuries to assault when they would not have done so because that is a legal term.
Choi said the review highlighted areas where his office can provide additional training to prosecutors on the role of medical experts. He thinks medical examiners and experts should be helpful to a jury but not “lead them to legal conclusions,” he said. “They should not be advocates for one side or the other.”
17 states and trade group sue California over plastics packaging law
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A coalition of 17 states and a trade association representing U.S. wholesalers and distributors have sued California to block the enforcement of a stringent recycling law that aims to reduce plastic packaging waste.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court, argues that California’s recently finalized regulations that will gradually require companies to scale back single-use plastics and ensure all packaging is recycling or compostable should be struck down. The plaintiffs called the regulations “onerous mandates” that will cause steep price increases in everyday necessities that will be passed on, at least in part, to consumers.
“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country. If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities,” Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, who led the coalition, said in a news release.
The law, called the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was enacted in 2022.
“Virtually every product packaged or shipped in plastic containers, as well as a significant number of other types of packaging materials that merely incorporate plastics, fall into the Act’s remarkable sweep,” the lawsuit said.
The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, which represents companies that import and distribute goods in California, also joined the lawsuit.
“California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Eric Hoplin, the trade association’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”
The lawsuit argues the law violates both the U.S. and California constitutions. It asks the court to declare California’s law invalid and unenforceable, and halt its implementation.
The lawsuit names as defendants Zoe Heller, director of California’s recycling agency known as CalRecycle, and the Circular Action Alliance, a nonprofit involved with implementing the law.
Melanie Turner, a spokesperson for CalRecycle, said in an emailed statement that the agency does not comment on pending litigation and that it remained focused on implementing the law.
The alliance said in a statement that it was aware of the lawsuit and closely monitoring developments while at the same time working to implement the law’s “ambitious goals.”
In a May news release announcing regulations under the law, state officials said the changes would fight plastics pollution while protecting the interests of taxpayers and local governments.
“California is shifting the responsibility of managing single-use plastic and packaging onto the producers. New packaging reforms lower waste costs for communities and decrease garbage and pollution across the state,” Environmental Protection Secretary Yana Garcia said in a statement. “This approach pushes producers to innovate and design packaging that truly supports a circular economy.”
Joining Nebraska in the lawsuit were 16 other states with Republican attorneys general: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.
Environmental groups also have sued over the law. A coalition that included the Natural Resources Defense Council recently filed a complaint over what it said in a news release were “weakened” final regulations for the “landmark” law.
Minnesota
6 convictions found to be fair after review of embattled medical examiner’s testimony
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A Minnesota county prosecutor said Tuesday that convictions in six different murder cases were fair despite the involvement of an embattled medical examiner whose work was called into question after a federal judge described his testimony in one high-profile case as “unreliable, misleading and inaccurate.”
Tuesday’s announcement on findings related to seven murder convictions largely concludes a yearslong review of cases handled by Dr. Michael McGee, a former Ramsey County medical examiner. In one of the seven cases, which involved a more recent plea agreement, Ramsey County Attorney John Choi said the findings are being shared with the defense team and the legal process will continue to play out.
The county hired three medical experts to review McGee’s testimony and reports, and Choi said they primarily identified concerning stylistic word choices but not substantive issues with his conclusions.
In a few cases, criticisms of McGee’s findings were more substantive, but Choi said their review “ultimately determined that while the criticisms were valid, they did not go to the aspects of the case that were key to determining the defendant’s guilt.”
He said the convictions in six cases were “fair and just,” and there was no basis to vacate or modify them.
Phone calls and messages to numbers listed for McGee were not immediately returned.
The Ramsey County Attorney’s Office began to review McGee’s work across more than three decades after a federal judge threw out a death sentence for a man convicted in the 2003 killing of Dru Sjodin, North Dakota college student.
District Judge Ralph Erickson said evidence showed McGee was “guessing” on the witness stand in the murder trial for Alfonso Rodriguez Jr. and that he offered opinions during the trial that were not in his autopsy reports.
Rodriguez was later resentenced to life in prison.
The Ramsey County Attorney’s Office worked with lawyers at the nonprofit Prosecutors’ Center for Excellence and consulted with the Great North Innocence Project as part of the review, which cost the county $380,000.
The three medical experts, who Choi said had no connection to Minnesota or the cases, described McGee’s language as at times overreaching or misleading. For example, there were instances where McGee attributed a victim’s injuries to assault when they would not have done so because that is a legal term.
Choi said the review highlighted areas where his office can provide additional training to prosecutors on the role of medical experts. He thinks medical examiners and experts should be helpful to a jury but not “lead them to legal conclusions,” he said. “They should not be advocates for one side or the other.”
