New York State Attorney General Letitia James is facing accusations of selectively enforcing state charity and election laws, exhibiting leniency towards political allies while pursuing conservative organizations and political adversaries with strict scrutiny. Critics point to the actions of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its affiliated entity, CAIR Action, as an example.
In June, CAIR and CAIR Action reportedly participated in New York Democratic primaries, endorsing and fundraising for several candidates. While such political activity is not unusual, the complaint centers on CAIR Action NY's alleged failure to register with the New York Charities Bureau, a requirement for entities soliciting funds in the state, despite being federally registered as a 501(c)(4). A report from the Intelligent Advocacy Network details these alleged violations. CAIR Action has previously faced scrutiny for similar issues in other states, including being barred from soliciting in California and fined for unlicensed solicitation in Washington D.C.
Despite these allegations and James's responsibilities in enforcing state laws, her office has reportedly remained silent on the matter concerning CAIR Action. In contrast, James's office has been noted for celebrating CAIR's work, taking action against groups investigating CAIR, and reportedly pushing for the dissolution of pro-Israel groups that have drawn CAIR's ire.
Furthermore, James has been characterized as a stringent enforcer of regulations for conservative groups. The article cites the case of VDare, a small anti-immigration website, which James's office has reportedly pursued over alleged "misappropriation" of funds, despite the organization not having operated in New York for years and donors allegedly being aware of the expenditures. The attorney general's office has also pursued legal action against Donald Trump and the Trump Organization concerning filings related to a repaid Deutsche Bank loan.
These contrasting approaches, critics argue, demonstrate a politically motivated enforcement strategy. The assertion is that James's office applies a different standard depending on political affiliation, with allies allegedly receiving preferential treatment, even in cases involving serious allegations, while perceived enemies face rigorous legal challenges over procedural matters.