Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt is backing a bill that would limit local governments from bringing lawsuits similar to litigation seeking damages resulting from vaping, opioid abuse and climate change.
The bill would bar local governments, including cities, counties and school districts, from hiring law firms on a contingency basis without the approval of the attorney general. The legislation also would apply to state government.
The bill comes amid a spate of litigation locally and nationally targeting oil and gas companies over climate change, drug manufacturers for opioid abuse and, most recently, producers of vaping products.
The bill is “intended to end the current haphazard race to the courthouse on important public interest litigation of statewide or national concern,” said the attorney general’s spokesman Clint Blaes.
“When legal issues that affect all of the state’s citizens are being litigated, the interests of the state and its citizens should be represented in a strategic, efficient and coordinated manner by the attorney general, as chief legal officer of the state.”
The proposed legislation would not be retroactive although it would prohibit any legal contracts from being extended for renewed going forward.
KCUR recently identified nearly 30 cities and counties in Kansas that have brought legal action against the opioid industry in court.
The litigants include Overland Park, Sedgwick County, the Unified Government in Kansas City, Kan., Reno, Pratt and Crawford counties.
Also recently, the state has seen the emergence of lawsuits filed over vaping, including action brought by the Olathe, Shawnee Mission, Blue Valley and Goddard school districts. They are seeking damages for the cost of keeping vaping off school grounds.
On a national scale, there’s been lawsuits against oil and gas companies accusing them of creating a public nuisance by producing fossil fuels that cause global warming.
They are seeking compensation for infrastructure needed to protect against extreme weather and rising sea levels caused by climate change.
Local government leaders see the attorney general’s litigation as encroaching on their authority to make decisions for themselves.
“We do not feel it is good public policy to have the attorney general be the sole, final arbiter on whether a local, public entity could enter a lawsuit on a contingent fee basis,” said Erik Sartorius, executive director of the League of Kansas Municipalities.
“Substituting the judgment of one elected official for that of an elected governing body is quite concerning to our members,” he said.
Sartorius based his comments on a draft of the legislation that the league had the chance to review.
The business community contends that the growth in the number of municipal lawsuits affects states’ ability to reach global settlements, undermines their regulatory authority and exposes companies to speculative claims.
It also argues that the lawsuits hurt the ability of state attorneys general to represent the state’s interests in litigation.
“The spiraling number of affirmative municipal lawsuits may lead to outcomes that undermine the fair and impartial legal system,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently wrote in a white paper.
“This includes delayed settlements, crippling litigation costs for defendants, usurped state power, and a diversion of consumer compensation,” the organization said.
The Kansas Chamber of Commerce backs the legislation as well.
“Having local units of government or state agencies pursuing a patchwork of class-action litigation on their own is not in the best interests of the state of Kansas,” said chamber lobbyist Eric Stafford.
“If there is a real issue out there that’s harming citizens of the state, then those decisions should be left to the attorney general,” Stafford said.
The attorney general, under the proposal, could allow state and local government to bring a lawsuit if he determines that it would serve the public interest and not
not impede legal interests of the state.
Based on what he knew about the bill on Tuesday, Taylor said he thought the Unified Government would oppose the legislation.
“We believe cities and counties should have local control and be able to make decisions like this on our own with the least amount of state and legislative interference,” Taylor said.
“Just on the surface, it’s something that, I think, once again interferes with a community’s ability have local control.
