Letitia James leads bipartisan coalition of 17 attorneys general against Clarity Act ahead of Senate vote

Eighteen state attorneys general, led by New York’s Letitia James, sent a letter to Senate Banking Committee leaders urging them to reject the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act in its current form. The September 14 letter argues that the legislation would gut state-level enforcement authority at precisely the moment when digital asset fraud is accelerating.

The coalition is notably bipartisan. Republican attorneys general from Kansas and Ohio joined the effort alongside their Democratic counterparts.

What the coalition is actually worried about

The core complaint is straightforward: the Clarity Act, as written, could limit the ability of state attorneys general to bring enforcement actions and antifraud cases against digital asset platforms. State agencies handle the majority of local law enforcement activities in financial markets, and the coalition argues the bill’s vague language around state powers would invite legal challenges from defendants looking to dodge prosecution.

James had previously submitted written testimony to the Senate on July 27, 2026, specifically focused on digital asset fraud. This latest letter escalates that effort from a solo warning to a coordinated, multi-state pushback.

The letter was addressed to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott and ranking member Elizabeth Warren.

The bill’s long legislative journey

The Clarity Act passed the House in July 2025, then cleared the Senate Banking Committee in May 2026. The legislation’s central purpose is to draw clear jurisdictional lines between the SEC and CFTC for different categories of digital assets.

The timing of the attorneys general letter is not coincidental. Senate Republicans released a revised draft of the bill alongside the coalition’s opposition, a version that incorporates over 126 amendments requested by Democrats. Those changes are intended to strengthen ethics provisions and clarify the role of state enforcement within the federal framework.

But the coalition isn’t convinced the revisions go far enough. Their argument is that even with the Democratic amendments, the bill’s underlying language on state authority remains too ambiguous to reliably protect consumers.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.