I’ve had some people ask
me what it’s like to
become Attorney General.
I’m still new, but
here’s the best way I
can describe it:
Imagine someone sets up
50 chess boards in front
of you.
Each board represents a
major case your office
is involved in - water
polluters, scammers,
criminals, public
corruption, antitrust,
fentanyl, price gouging.
Every board is a chess
match against an
opponent like that.
Some of these matches
have been going on for
years. Your first job is
to study each board,
understand how we got
here, and then - most
importantly - figure out
how to prevail.
Fortunately, you’re not
alone. You have access
to teams of experts who
are highly experienced
and will give you as
much information as you
want.
So your first few weeks?
They’re spent learning.
Consulting with your
teams, understanding the
history, listening to
strategic advice.
And then, one by one,
you start making moves.
Every move matters
because every board
represents real lives
and real stakes.
I know that’s pretty
abstract, so I asked
A.I. to create a visual
aid. Here you go:
Not sure those chess
boards look quite right,
but otherwise not half
bad...
Now substitute lower
ceilings, fluorescent
lights, more coffee cups
and computer monitors,
and you’ve got the idea.
The Sackler
Family
When I was in high
school, the Sackler
family’s pharmaceutical
company - Purdue Pharma
- invented a new opioid
pill.
They lied to doctors and
said it wasn’t addictive.
That was the start of
the opioid crisis. Back
then, we called it the
prescription pill crisis.
It took us about ten
years, but eventually,
we cracked down.
But by then, loads of
people were addicted, so
they hit the streets
looking for their fix -
and found heroin.
So then we had a heroin
crisis.
That lasted for a few
years until synthetic heroin
arrived - and that’s
fentanyl.
The fentanyl crisis is
really just the third
wave of the opioid
crisis the Sackler
family helped create in
the mid-1990s with their
deceptive marketing of
OxyContin.
Our state was one of the
leaders of the
mega-lawsuit against the
Sacklers, and a few
years ago, a big
settlement was reached.
Then the Supreme Court
blocked the settlement.
They told the states to
renegotiate the terms.
So we did. And last
week, we got it resolved
in a way I’m pretty sure
will be upheld by the
court.
The bottom line? A lot
more money for North
Carolina. And, by the
terms of the agreement,
that money will go
almost entirely to
anti-addiction programs
run by individual cities
and counties. It’s being
channeled directly into
the communities that
have been hit hardest,
with strict rules that
it be used to treat
addiction or prevent the
next generation from
falling into this
epidemic.
That news was a huge
deal for our office, and
when the additional
funding starts to flow
later this year, it will
be a huge deal for the
state as well.
Federal Funding
Freeze
One time, many years
ago, President Nixon
announced that he wasn’t
going to spend the money
Congress had
appropriated for some
clean water programs.
And the Supreme Court
unanimously said he
couldn’t do that. If
Congress passes a law
that says, “Spend $100
on this,” the president
can’t decide, “I’d
rather spend $50.” The
Constitution gives
spending power to
Congress - there’s no
getting around that
simply by declining to
spend what they’ve
appropriated.
Clinton tried something
similar, though on a
smaller scale, and the
Supreme Court blocked
him, too. He used a
line-item veto - which
Congress had explicitly
given him! - to strike
certain spending
provisions from the
budget. The Court ruled
that violated the
Constitution. Why?
Because not even
Congress can delegate
its power to the
president without
amending the
Constitution. Congress
has certain power
reserved to it, whether
it likes it or not.
So when a president says,
“Hey, freeze hundreds of
billions that Congress
appropriated,” it’s not
a close constitutional
call. It goes much
further than Nixon and
Clinton went, and it’s
obviously not going to
hold up in court.
And it didn’t.
On Sunday night, just as
I was sitting down to
dinner with my family, I
got a text about the
president’s order to
freeze a massive chunk
of federal funding. I
read the order - just a
page and a half long -
and it was immediately
clear that it was
unlawful.
First thing the next
morning, I spoke with my
team and we all agreed:
Based on clear precedent,
this violated the
Constitution. So we
joined the lawsuit to
challenge it, and the
court quickly put the
freeze on hold, pending
a full hearing.
Now the order has been
withdrawn entirely. The
administration said it
“didn’t go through the
proper approval process.”
Now we’re waiting to see
if funding freeze
version 2.0 appears. If
it does, I assume
they’ll take a more
tailored approach in the
hope of surviving a
court challenge.
Here’s what I
take from all of this: The
rule of law still holds.
When power is
overstepped, there are
mechanisms to pull it
back. And it’s important
to hold the line, not
for politics, but to
defend the
constitutional order on
which civil society
depends.
I’ll keep you posted.
Best,
Jeff Jackson
Donate (ActBlue)
Donate (non-ActBlue)
Share
