Participation by Iowa in the multi-state law suit against federal vaccine mandates, if actually done through Democrat Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, one might suspect will be “marginal”
The introduction of the ten plaintiff states challenging the lawfulness of Biden Administration dictates regarding “use of federal procurement statutes to create sweeping new power to issue decrees over large swaths of the U.S. economy and take over areas of traditional state power . . . and that. . .2. Through Executive Order 14042, President Biden has arrogated to the Executive Branch the unilateral power to mandate that all employees of federal contractors be vaccinated. is telling.
Reading the introduction of the parties to the case note the chosen language of the various state participants: Most list the AG’s name and all but Iowa use language that imparts a sense of willingness by the AG in participating. Iowa’s (in bold but compare to others) reads like Miller wants it understood he is doing so under the duress of the recent Iowa changes/clarifications to AG responsibilities as regards executive department decisions on behalf of the state.
Frankly with a lawyer group like a liberal like Miller surrounds himself with, we would just go with outside counsel. Their heart won’t be in it. We presume their betters in the other states will carry the day. Left to their own devices they would not be effective.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff State of Missouri is a sovereign State of the United States of America. Missouri sues to vindicate its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, proprietary, and parens patriae interests.
4. Eric S. Schmitt is the 43rd Attorney General of the State of Missouri. Attorney General Schmitt is authorized to bring actions on behalf of Missouri that are “necessary to protect the rights and interests of the state, and enforce any and all rights, interests, or claims any and all persons, firms or corporations in whatever court or jurisdiction such action may be necessary.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 270.060.
5. Plaintiff State of Nebraska is a sovereign State of the United States of America. Nebraska sues to vindicate its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, proprietary, and parens patriae interests.
6. Douglas J. Peterson is the Attorney General of Nebraska. Attorney General Peterson is authorized to bring legal actions on behalf of the State of Nebraska and its citizens.
7. Plaintiff State of Alaska is a sovereign State of the United States of America. Alaska sues to vindicate its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, proprietary, and parens patriae interests.
8. Treg R. Taylor is the Attorney General of Alaska. Attorney General Taylor is authorized to bring legal actions on behalf of the State of Alaska and its citizens.
9. Plaintiff State of Arkansas is a sovereign State of the United States of America. Arkansas sues to vindicate its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, proprietary, and parens patriae interests.
3
Case: 4:21-cv-01300 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 10/29/21 Page: 4 of 44 PageID #: 4
10. Leslie Rutledge is the Attorney General of Arkansas. Attorney General Rutledge is authorized to bring legal actions on behalf of the State of Arkansas and its citizens.
11. Plaintiff State of Iowa is a sovereign State of the United States of America. Iowa sues to vindicate its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, proprietary, and parens patriae interests.
12. The Attorney General of Iowa is authorized and required to prosecute legal actions on behalf of the State of Iowa and its citizens when requested to so by the Governor.
13. Plaintiff State of Montana is a sovereign State of the United States of America. Montana sues to vindicate its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, proprietary, and parens patriae interests.
14. The Attorney General of Montana is authorized to bring legal actions on behalf of the State of Montana and its citizens.
15. Plaintiff State of New Hampshire is a sovereign State of the United States of America. New Hampshire sues to vindicate its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, proprietary, and parens patriae interests.
16. The Attorney General of New Hampshire is authorized to bring legal actions on behalf of the State of New Hampshire and its citizens.
17. Plaintiff State of North Dakota is a sovereign State of the United States of America. North Dakota sues to vindicate its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, proprietary, and parens patriae interests.
18. Wayne Stenehjem is the North Dakota Attorney General. Attorney General Stenehjem is authorizedtobringlegalactionsonbehalfoftheStateofNorthDakotaanditscitizens. N.D.Cent. Code 54-12-02.
19. Plaintiff State of South Dakota is a body politic created by the Constitution and laws of the State; as such, it is not a citizen of any state. This action is brought by the State in its sovereign capacity in order to protect the interests of the State of South Dakota and its citizens as parens
4
Case: 4:21-cv-01300 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 10/29/21 Page: 5 of 44 PageID #: 5
patriae, by and through Jason R. Ravnsborg, the Attorney General of the State of South Dakota. The Attorney General is acting pursuant to his authority to appear for the State and prosecute any civil matter in which the State is a party or interested when, in his judgment, the welfare of the State demands. S.D. Codified Laws §1-11-1(2).
20.PlaintiffStateofWyomingisasovereignStateoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica. Wyoming sues to vindicate its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, proprietary, and parens patriae interests.
21. Bridget Hill is the Attorney General of Wyoming. Attorney General Hill is authorized to bring legal actions on behalf of the State of Wyoming and its citizens. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 9-1-603. 22.
Collectively, the States of Missouri, Nebraska, Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming are referred to herein as the “Plaintiff
States.”
Actually to be opposed to vaccine mandates, specially as regards a still experimental concoction with no long term studies to establish safety and efficacy, indeed revolsion at the very principle of “no jab no job” would seem to be the sincere liberal position. But American liberals (Democrats) are not liberals — they are control freaks of the first order, they are imbued with a condescending managerial outlook, disdain for the small business kulaks about and possessed of all the finesse of the Red Guard.
