North Carolina primed for showdown over Dem AG's ability to sue Trump
A North Carolina bill could become the nation's test case on whether a legislature can prevent a politically-opposed state prosecutor from suing the presidential administration on behalf of the state.
The bill, SB 58, would limit present and future North Carolina attorneys general from participating in litigation seeking to invalidate any executive order issued by the president of the United States.
"The Attorney General shall not, as a party, amicus, or any other participant in an action pending before a state or federal court in another state, advance any argument that would result in the invalidation of any statute enacted by the General Assembly," the bill reads.
"The attorney general shall not… an action that would result in the invalidation of an executive order issued by the President of the United States [or] advance any argument in a pending action that would result in the invalidation of any executive order issued by the president."
The bill passed on a party-line vote last week in the GOP-controlled state Senate, and appears primed for consideration by the House — which lost its veto-proof majority by one vote last election.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson has already put his name to several suits against the feds since taking office in January.
Jackson, a Democrat and former member of Congress for the western Charlotte suburbs, has to put politics aside in his role and instead represent the state as a whole, his spokesman, Ben Conroy, said Monday in pushing back on the legislation.
"The attorney general's duty is to be a nonpartisan shield for the people of North Carolina. Nearly 90 federal executive orders have been issued. Attorney General Jackson has filed four federal lawsuits to protect billions in funding for western North Carolina, our public universities, and rural jobs," Conroy said.
"In each case, judges across the country have agreed that the federal government's actions were likely unlawful or unconstitutional. Any legislation that undermines the independence of the Attorney General's Office is bad for our state and its people."
In a WCNC interview earlier this year, Jackson defended joining a multi-state lawsuit against President Donald Trump's federal funding freeze, saying the funds add up to billions of dollars for North Carolina.
Jackson said some of that money would go toward victims of domestic violence, veterans, law enforcement and "could really impact FEMA and the recovery work they're doing in Western North Carolina."
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Tim Moffitt — who hails from Helene-ravaged Hendersonville — previously described it as a "housekeeping" measure and a response to attorneys general writ-large using the courts to determine public policy.
The Senate-approved bill has been sent to the House Rules Committee, chaired by Majority Leader John Bell IV, R-Goldsboro.
Bell did not respond to a request for comment, but a spokesperson for House Speaker Destin Hall, R-Lenoir, said the people of North Carolina voted for Trump three times, and therefore it is clear where they stand on his governance.
"And, it's disappointing when Democratic officials try and obstruct his agenda," spokesperson Grant Lefelar said.
"North Carolina House Republicans are taking a look at several ways to hold the Attorney General accountable for wasting time on partisan lawsuits instead of working to crack down on violent crime and illegal immigration," Lefelar added.
Fox News Digital also reached out to the bill's other topline sponsors, including Reps. Eddie Settle, R-Elkin, and Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck.
Bill opponent Sen. Graig Meyer, D-Hillsborough, told the Carolina Journal that Jackson's power should not be curtailed when "he has the opportunity to defend our state for jobs, for funding, for healthcare, for things that our people desperately need."
While Democratic Gov. Josh Stein is expected to veto the bill if it reaches his desk, he also did not respond to a request for comment. If House Republicans can get one Democratic vote, they could override any Stein veto.
Fox News Digital also reached out to House Minority Leader Robert Reives II, D-Pittsboro, for his view on the legislation and whether any Democrats might cross the aisle.
Mitch Kokai, a representative for the North Carolina-centric libertarian-leaning John Locke Foundation, said it is "no surprise" GOP leaders are trying to restrain Jackson from continuing to affix his name to lawsuits against Trump.
"The new law also forces Jackson to defer to the general assembly's lawyers and legal strategy when legislators decide to take part in a courtroom dispute," he said.
Kokai said an attorney general's core role is defending North Carolina and fighting in-state scams and crime and that there is "no compelling reason" to use taxpayer resources to "cozy up" to other AGs.
"He can build his resume for the next stop in his political career on his own time," he said, as Stein, Democratic predecessor Roy Cooper, and prior Republican Gov. Mike Easley all served as the state's top lawman before moving into the governor's mansion.
While in many states the attorney general's office mirrors the state legislative majority, North Carolina is one of a handful of states where the attorney general and governor are both Democrats, but the legislature is held by the GOP.
Arizona and Wisconsin notably have the same governmental setup as North Carolina but do not appear to have forwarded similar legislation as of yet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
42 minutes ago
- CNN
Why McCain and Obama are causing marital tension
(LifeWire) -- Pamela Rainey Lawler and Denis Lawler of Philadelphia have handled the travails of being married 38 years without seeing eye to eye on a lot of things. The upcoming presidential election is no different. Pamela, a 58-year-old self-described "left-left" Democrat, will be voting for Barack Obama. Denis, a 60-year-old longtime Republican, plans to vote for John McCain. Although they joke about their situation, Pamela says it's hard to keep her sense of humor when the stakes are so high. Good thing they love each other. "It gets hard when things are getting down and dirty and there is a lot on the line," Pamela, the director of outreach and development at an educational company, says of her husband, a lawyer. But she adds, "The foundation of [our] relationship is so much bigger than politics, and tends to trump politics." Especially in an election season where emotions are running high, couples who don't agree on politics can keep the peace by being open and honest with one another. "Where couples get in trouble is not so much having a different opinion; it's how they communicate it," says Grecia Matthews, a couples therapist and social worker in New York City. Couples need to be honest about their arguing styles and tolerance for criticism, she adds. State your opinion Good communication skills are important, it's true, but as Lorraine Duval knows, it also helps to be married to a good-natured spouse. Duval, a 33-year-old music teacher and McCain disciple from Glens Falls, New York, admits that in the heat of the moment she has called her pro-Obama husband, Chris, by other, less loving names. "Sometimes you have to state your opinion," she says, though she emphasizes that Chris' easygoing nature diffuses the tension. She returns the favor at social gatherings where Republicans far outnumber Democrats. She'll "go off the deep end" in his defense if she feels McCain voters are ganging up on him, says Chris, a 34-year-old mortician. "We really didn't discuss our views until later on in the relationship," Lorraine explains. "It wouldn't have been an issue for me anyway." Besides, points out Andre Anthony Moore, the founder of Marriage and Couples Counseling in New York City, if spouses agreed on everything, "life would be dull." "But in the process of drinking in the other's opinion," he says, "you might get to be a bigger person." Embrace the difference Opinions always got a good airing in the Lawlers' home when she was growing up, says their daughter, Kristin, 37. "At our dinner table, if you couldn't be persuasive, you were toast," says Kristin, an assistant professor of sociology at the College of Mount St. Vincent in Riverdale, New York. But such debate wasn't divisive, it was healthy, she says. Even today, when the family gathers, they debate politics. "I do think that my parents would make a good model for others who vote differently and who are able to see their differences in a positive light," says Kristin. "Difference is a vital principle -- it keeps you on your toes. Having a good opponent makes you a better debater. And if you want your side to win, you have to know how to make a strong political argument." For the record, though, Pamela Lawler says the couple's three children tend to side with her. Agree to disagree "Elizabeth Leslie, 37, a Democrat from Sacramento, California, works hard to maintain the political peace with husband Troy Gassaway, 35, a Republican." "It's exceptionally challenging," she says. "We agree to disagree." Leslie confesses she can't help but try to sway her husband's allegiance -- as communications manager for the nonpartisan League of Women Voters of California, political persuasion is part of her job. Leslie, who was not speaking on behalf of the League, says she has persuaded her husband to vote her way on several proposals in the past two elections. She praised him for listening to her when he's on the fence about any legislation. But come November, he's sticking with McCain. "My advice is for couples to hear the other out," she says. "The passion that made up their mind -- at least consider it." And even if the debate gets ugly, consider the fringe benefits. All that emotion can stimulate friendlier activity, therapist Grecia Matthews points out: "There can be makeup sex." Keeping the peace Live in a house divided? Here are some tips for keeping the peace when you and your partner split the ticket: • If disagreements get too personal, consider keeping sensitive subjects like politics off-limits. • If you need to vent an unpopular opinion, talk with a friend who holds similar values. • Agree on a "safe word" signifying that a tense conversation needs to end, out of respect for one another. • After tensions peak, do an activity you both enjoy -- take a walk or go to the movies -- and remember why you love each other. • Establish firm guidelines on when and where it's OK to bring up the campaign -- if at all. E-mail to a friend LifeWire provides original and syndicated lifestyle content to Web publishers. Ron Dicker, a Brooklyn-based journalist, frequently writes about relationship topics. He previously covered sports for the New York Times. All About U.S. Politics • John McCain • Barack Obama
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
What to know about Minnesota lawmakers' shootings that killed Melissa Hortman
A manhunt was under way in Minnesota over Saturday night for the suspect in the shooting of two state lawmakers at their Twin Cities homes that Gov. Tim Walz called a "politically motivated assassination." The big picture: Minnesota state House Democratic Leader Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, were killed and state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, were wounded in the attacks by a gunman whom officials said was impersonating a police officer. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said at a Saturday briefing that the injured couple were receiving care in the hospital after undergoing surgery for their gunshot wounds. The suspect, whom officials identified as Vance Luther Boelter, 57, was still at large as of early Sunday and the FBI has offered a reward of up to $50,000 for information leading to his arrest and conviction. What happened: Police said they responded about 2am Saturday to a report of a shooting at Hoffman's home in Champlin, about 22 miles north of downtown Minneapolis. Brooklyn Park Police Chief Mark Bruley said at a Saturday briefing that around 3:35am officers proactively checked on Hortman at her home some five miles away. Police exchanged gunfire with the suspect at Hortman's Brookyln Park home, but Bruley said he escaped. What they found: The suspect abandoned at Hortman's home an SUV that was similar to a police squad vehicle, investigators said.
4 hours ago
Medicaid enrollees fear losing health coverage if Congress enacts work requirements
It took Crystal Strickland years to qualify for Medicaid, which she needs for a heart condition. Strickland, who's unable to work due to her condition, chafed when she learned that the U.S. House has passed a bill that would impose a work requirement for many able-bodied people to get health insurance coverage through the low-cost, government-run plan for lower-income people. 'What sense does that make?' she asked. 'What about the people who can't work but can't afford a doctor?' The measure is part of the version of President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful' bill that cleared the House last month and is now up for consideration in the Senate. Trump is seeking to have it passed by July 4. The bill as it stands would cut taxes and government spending — and also upend portions of the nation's social safety net. For proponents, the ideas behind the work requirement are simple: Crack down on fraud and stand on the principle that taxpayer-provided health coverage isn't for those who can work but aren't. The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails — or during certain emergencies. It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul. Many details of how the changes would work would be developed later, leaving several unknowns and causing anxiety among recipients who worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them. Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees worry — based largely on their past experience — that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates. Strickland, a 44-year-old former server, cook and construction worker who lives in Fairmont, North Carolina, said she could not afford to go to a doctor for years because she wasn't able to work. She finally received a letter this month saying she would receive Medicaid coverage, she said. 'It's already kind of tough to get on Medicaid,' said Strickland, who has lived in a tent and times and subsisted on nonperishable food thrown out by stores. 'If they make it harder to get on, they're not going to be helping.' Steve Furman is concerned that his 43-year-old son, who has autism, could lose coverage. The bill the House adopted would require Medicaid enrollees to show that they work, volunteer or go to school at least 80 hours a month to continue to qualify. A disability exception would likely apply to Furman's son, who previously worked in an eyeglasses plant in Illinois for 15 years despite behavioral issues that may have gotten him fired elsewhere. Furman said government bureaucracies are already impossible for his son to navigate, even with help. It took him a year to help get his son onto Arizona's Medicaid system when they moved to Scottsdale in 2022, and it took time to set up food benefits. But he and his wife, who are retired, say they don't have the means to support his son fully. 'Should I expect the government to take care of him?' he asked. 'I don't know, but I do expect them to have humanity.' About 71 million adults are enrolled in Medicaid now. And most of them — around 92% — are working, caregiving, attending school or disabled. Earlier estimates of the budget bill from the Congressional Budget Office found that about 5 million people stand to lose coverage. A KFF tracking poll conducted in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum. About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats. The poll found that about 7 in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area. About half said they were worried reductions would hurt the ability of them or their family to get and pay for health care. Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment. Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility. 'Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern,' she said. One KFF poll respondent, Virginia Bell, a retiree in Starkville, Mississippi, said she's seen sick family members struggle to get onto Medicaid, including one who died recently without coverage. She said she doesn't mind a work requirement for those who are able — but worries about how that would be sorted out. 'It's kind of hard to determine who needs it and who doesn't need it,' she said. Lexy Mealing, 54 of Westbury, New York, who was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021 and underwent a double mastectomy and reconstruction surgeries, said she fears she may lose the medical benefits she has come to rely on, though people with 'serious or complex' medical conditions could be granted exceptions. She now works about 15 hours a week in 'gig' jobs but isn't sure she can work more as she deals with the physical and mental toll of the cancer. Mealing, who used to work as a medical receptionist in a pediatric neurosurgeon's office before her diagnosis and now volunteers for the American Cancer Society, went on Medicaid after going on short-term disability. 'I can't even imagine going through treatments right now and surgeries and the uncertainty of just not being able to work and not have health insurance,' she said. Felix White, who has Type I diabetes, first qualified for Medicaid after losing his job as a computer programmer several years ago. The Oreland, Pennsylvania, man has been looking for a job, but finds that at 61, it's hard to land one. Medicaid, meanwhile, pays for a continuous glucose monitor and insulin and funded foot surgeries last year, including one that kept him in the hospital for 12 days. 'There's no way I could have afforded that,' he said. 'I would have lost my foot and probably died.'
