The Office of the Attorney General is currently closed to the Public. Click here for more information

Formal Opinions

Page 1 of 42

  • 2019-03 Formal Opinion Attorney General State of Connecticut

    Whether 2019 Senate Bill 64 (An Act Concerning Captive Audience Meetings) and 2019 Senate Bill 440 (An Act Protecting Employee Freedom of Speech and Conscience) are preempted by the federal National Labor Relations Act

  • 2018-04 Formal Opinion, Attorney General State of Connecticut

    Denise L. Nappier, State Treasurer, asked for a formal opinion concerning the impact of recent legislative amendments on the state’s bond cap and bond covenants.

  • 2018-02 Formal Opinion Attorney General, State of Connecticut

    Honorable Leonard A. Fasano asked for a formal opinion on whether House Bill 5473, An Act Concerning Captive Audience Meetings (HB 5473), is preempted by federal law.

  • 2018-03 Formal Opinion Attorney General State of Connecticut

    You have asked my opinion regarding the ability of the Auditors of Public Accounts (APA or Auditors) to review and copy a report of a private contractor to the Department of Corrections (DOC) regarding the medical care of certain DOC inmates, even though the document is privileged under the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges.

  • 2018-01 Formal Opinion, Attorney General, State of Connecticut

    The Speaker of the House of Representatives has requested opinions on several gaming-related issues. First, you ask questions about the amendments to the existing gaming agreements with the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe (Tribes), and the federal approval thereof, required by Public Act 17-89. Second, you inquire about the implications of a decision in a pending U.S. Supreme Court case that could result in the lifting of a federal prohibition on sports betting. And third, you ask about the legal consequences of legislation creating a request for proposal process for sports betting or casino gaming.

  • 2019-04 Formal Opinion Attorney General State of Connecticut

    The scope of the State Properties Review Board’s (“Board”) statutory authority to review certain state contracts.

  • 2019-05 Formal Opinion Attorney General State of Connecticut

    Whether records in the possession of the House Minority Leader related to her services on the board of directors of The Partnership for Connecticut, Inc. are subject to the disclosure under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-200 et seq

  • 2019-02 Formal Opinion Attorney General State of Connecticut

    On the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1134, captioned An Act Restructuring the State Bond Commission and Establishing a Dedicated Bonding Section within the Legislative Office of Fiscal Analysis

  • 2019-01 Formal Opinion Attorney General State of Connecticut

    Constitutionality of eliminating the religious exemption for required immunizations, as set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-204a(a)

  • 2020-01 Formal Opinion Attorney General State of Connecticut

    Whether Section 3 of the July 15, 2020 version of the proposed Police Accountability Bill (LCO 3471) would interact with collectively bargained grievance procedures.

  • 2020-02 Formal Opinion Attorney General State of Connecticut

    What is the scope of the Judicial Review Council’s authority when considering a judge’s disability retirement application pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 51-49?

  • Hon. Donald F. Miller, Commissioner of Revenue Services, 1994-019 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    This is in response to your letter dated January 31, 1994, in which you request a formal opinion of the Attorney General concerning an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the tax review committee (hereinafter "the committee") under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-3a. Please advise me whether the tax review committee has statutory authority to consider and to waive any penalty in excess of one hundred dollars that the Commissioner of Revenue Services has determined not to waive.

  • The Honorable John G. Rowland, The Capitol, 2002-018 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    On October 9, 2002, the Freedom of Information Commission (Commission) ruled that the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) was not required to disclose to the public eight documents in CRRA's possession which were the subject of an April 17, 2002, and an April 23, 2002 Freedom of Information Complaint filed by Paul A. Green and the Journal Inquirer. According to the Commission, the eight documents in question either constitute attorney-client communications or relate to CRRA's possible litigation strategy to recover the $220 million loaned to Enron and are, therefore, exempt from public disclosure pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-210(b)(10) and 1-210(b)(4). By letter dated October 11, 2002, you have asked me to obtain from CRRA the eight documents that have not yet been disclosed and release them to the public.

  • The Honorable John P. Burke, Department of Banking, 2002-031 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    I am writing in response to your request for a formal opinion as to whether the Department of Banking ("Department") has the authority to reimburse an electronic service provider for reasonable costs associated with complying with an administrative subpoena, in light of the requirements imposed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 2706 ("ECPA") and section 36b-26(b) of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act ("Act").

  • The Honorable Joseph Pellegrino, Supreme Court Building, 2002-001 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    Your office has asked whether the recent injunction regarding Connecticut's Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORA) issued by the United States District Court of Connecticut, and upheld by the Second Circuit, impedes in any way the implementation of Public Act 01-211, concerning victim notification. That Act requires victim notification of applications for exemption from the Sex Offender Registry or its notification requirements.