logo
Democratic AGs shift their focus to the next phase of their legal battle against Trump

Democratic AGs shift their focus to the next phase of their legal battle against Trump

Yahoo2 days ago

Democratic attorneys general around the country were at the forefront of the legal battles that put up roadblocks to key parts of President Donald Trump's sweeping agenda at the outset of his new administration.
Now, even as the initial rapid-fire onslaught of executive actions has slowed, they are vowing to keep up their aggressive — and coordinated — posture in the courts.
In a joint interview with NBC News, the Democratic attorneys general, Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts, Rob Bonta of California and Matthew Platkin of New Jersey, laid out their priorities for taking on the Trump administration in the latter half of 2025 and beyond. They said they are specifically looking at bolstering consumer protections, combating what they see as Trump's weaponization of the federal government and stymying the administration's immigration policies.
Since Trump's inauguration, Democratic attorneys general have filed 30 lawsuits combined against the administration, focused on issues including immigration and due process, tariffs, federal worker layoffs and the dismantling of federal agencies. California has been a part of 25 of those lawsuits, compared to 21 for New Jersey and 20 for Massachusetts.
Campbell, Bonta and Platkin said they will remain vigilant in responding to new Trump policies while maintaining fights on critical areas stemming from the president's first months in office.
'One thing I think we demonstrated in the first 100 days of this administration — and continue to — is that we are organized, we are strategic, and we're unafraid to take on what's coming, whether that be unlawful executive orders or standing up in court to defend our states' interests, residents, economies and institutions,' Campbell said.
'This isn't about policy or political differences,' Platkin noted. 'That's not the basis of a lawsuit.'
Rather, he said, 'We will look at whether the president's violating the law and hurting the residents of our state.'
A Trump administration spokesperson didn't respond to questions for this article.
One of the most prominent concerns held by these Democratic attorneys general is what they say is Trump's weaponization of the government.
The Department of Government Efficiency has, for example, attempted to obtain access to sensitive Internal Revenue Service data that could jeopardize the personal information — including the home addresses and Social Security numbers — of federal workers and others. The data could also be used to target specific people with political retribution, and to push false narratives about undocumented immigrants and voter fraud allegations, critics have warned.
'We're working closely to support some of these entities through existing lawsuits, whether directly filed by us or amicus briefs,' Campbell said.
She was among 19 attorneys general who sued DOGE in February 'to protect the sensitive information of our constituents, including their IRS data, and ensure that these agencies were not weaponized against our people or against our residents or immigrants or weaponized against our nonprofit organizations or academic institutions,' she said.
Meanwhile, referring to efforts by Republicans and the Trump White House to target certain nonprofits by stripping them of their tax-exempt status, Bonta said it was 'shocking and remarkable' that the administration might be able to go after such groups 'they don't agree with based on their viewpoint.'
He said such efforts ran the risk of violating those groups' First Amendment rights, stating: 'We will be watching closely what the IRS does — and honestly, any other weaponization.'
Democratic attorneys general have been especially active in fighting Trump's efforts to detain and deport undocumented immigrants.
And while much of those initial efforts centered around litigation, Campbell said her office was going to double down on efforts to provide legal guidance to immigrant communities in her state so they better know how to avoid or handle such situations.
'The guidance and the work that we're doing to ensure folks know what their rights are is just as important as the litigation that we are filing against the federal administration,' Campbell said. 'That guidance will continue — and must. It will not slow down.'
Campbell said that, just last week, her office had released guidance to people who might be targeted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids related to 'know what their rights are, when it comes to ICE and ICE enforcement and ICE showing up in their community.'
Group members said they'd also be active on the issue of consumer protections after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — the federal agency that had handled discipline of such abuses — was gutted by the Trump administration.
Campbell, as well Bonta and Platkin, said they'd continue to fight Trump's attempted elimination of the agency, while also trying to do some of the work the bureau had overseen.
'Because we now do not have a partner at the federal level looking to advance consumer protection, more of these cases now fall on us,' Campbell said.
Platkin, for his part, said he was concerned about how many of the Trump administration's policies — especially ones related to withholding certain funding for states and related to guns — had put public safety at risk.
He mentioned cost-cutting measures across Trump's Justice Department that resulted in the decimation of law enforcement and public safety grants.
In New Jersey, Platkin said that has resulted in 'taking cops off the streets,' as well as the elimination of millions of dollars in funding for items like license plate reader technology, which he said has helped law enforcement officials in the state 'to catch violent criminals and human traffickers and drug traffickers.'
Platkin also expressed concern about a settlement Trump's Justice Department reached last month that would allow the sale of devices that enable standard firearms to fire like machine guns.
Platkin was involved in the litigation to fight sales of the devices — called forced reset triggers — and was now reviewing affirmative lawsuits on the matter.
'As the chief law enforcement officer of my state, one thing that has given me real concern is the risk to public safety that this administration's policies have created,' he said.
While Democratic attorneys general have aggressively fought Trump's tariffs, Bonta said the battle was far from over.
In addition to continuing the legal fight, he said he was going to closely watch to see whether corporations in his state might exploit the economic uncertainty surrounding Trump's tariffs to unnecessarily raise prices.
'With respect to the tariffs — and corporations using that opportunity to harm consumers, to take advantage of them, potentially manipulate pricing — this is the bread and butter of what we do,' Bonta said. 'We do it in non-Trump times. We do it in Trump times. We protect consumers against price gouging and junk fees and price fixing and anti competitive behavior.'
'It's just what we do, and we will continue to do that,' he added.
Bonta warned that companies might see a unique opportunity 'to jack up their prices and harm consumers' and that he and his colleagues would remain 'vigilant in our ongoing efforts to protect consumers, whether it be due to a tariff excuse or some other type of cover, to harm consumers.'
Bonta, Campbell and Platkin also said they would remain flexible to deal with whatever the next phase of the Trump presidency brings.
'When posed with the question, you know, 'What do we do next,' really, the answer is: It depends on what the Trump administration does,' Bonta said.
'We're monitoring all the things that he's doing,' he added. 'And when he crosses the threshold of taking an action that is unlawful and harming our states — meaning, we have standing to sue — then we sue — whatever it is."
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

See moment Trump criticized Musk in Oval Office
See moment Trump criticized Musk in Oval Office

CNN

time11 minutes ago

  • CNN

See moment Trump criticized Musk in Oval Office

See moment Trump criticized Musk in Oval Office President Trump said he was 'very disappointed' with Elon Musk, as the tech billionaire and former adviser continues to blast Trump's massive tax and spending cuts package. The bill is estimated to add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Musk responded on X in real-time saying that he never saw the bill before it passed and said the elimination of America's electric vehicle tax incentives has nothing to do with his opposition to Trump's bill. 01:15 - Source: CNN Vertical Politics of the Day 16 videos See moment Trump criticized Musk in Oval Office President Trump said he was 'very disappointed' with Elon Musk, as the tech billionaire and former adviser continues to blast Trump's massive tax and spending cuts package. The bill is estimated to add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Musk responded on X in real-time saying that he never saw the bill before it passed and said the elimination of America's electric vehicle tax incentives has nothing to do with his opposition to Trump's bill. 01:15 - Source: CNN Curtis Yarvin is inspiring a new generation of MAGA CNN's Hadas Gold interviews anti-democracy author Curtis Yarvin about his argument for an all-powerful executive in the White House. 02:24 - Source: CNN DNC Trolls Trump with Taco Truck The Democratic National Committee parked a taco truck outside the RNC headquarters in Washington DC Tuesday, as a way to troll the president over an acronym created by a Financial Times commentator about the president's frequent walk backs and pauses to his tariff's. 00:52 - Source: CNN Musk calls Trump's bill 'disgusting abomination' Elon Musk lashed out at President Donald Trump's agenda bill — which the president is pressuring GOP senators to support — calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' CNN's Kaitlan Collins reports. 00:59 - Source: CNN ICE chief defends agents wearing masks during immigration raids Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons is defending federal immigration agents for wearing masks during raids across the US, citing safety concerns. The tactic has sparked backlash and raised questions about transparency and accountability. 00:58 - Source: CNN Dana Bash presses Trump's budget chief about cancer cuts CNN's Dana Bash presses Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought on the Trump administration's proposal to cut non-defense spending by more than 22% — including deep reductions to education, food assistance, and billions in cancer research funding. As Vought defends the cuts and criticizes the NIH, Bash challenges him on the real-world impact to life-saving medical research. 01:35 - Source: CNN Trump reacts to video of Macron's apparent shove from wife President Trump was asked by reporters about the viral video appearing to show French President Emmanuel Macron being pushed by his wife Brigitte as they disembarked from a plane in Vietnam. Macron, at the time, quickly dismissed the video. 00:34 - Source: CNN Trans high school athlete wins events amid controversy A transgender athlete, whose participation sparked a national controversy and a temporary rule change, took first place in two of her three events in the California High School Track and Field Championship. 01:09 - Source: CNN South Carolina voter says 'no' to moving center South Carolina has often bucked the electoral trend – voting for candidates who lost in Iowa or New Hampshire and thus helping pick which candidate will move on to the general election. CNN's Jeff Simon spoke to multiple voters at a Democrat dinner in Columbia, South Carolina about the party's leadership and future. 01:25 - Source: CNN Hegseth warns 'threat China poses is real' US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking to Asia's premier defense forum in Singapore, delivered a dire warning to the world: China's designs on Taiwan pose a threat to global peace and stability that requires 'our allies and partners do their part on defense.' While Hegseth made clear that Washington does not seek conflict with China, he stressed the Trump administration would not let aggression from Beijing stand. 00:50 - Source: CNN GOP senator pressed on Medicaid in heated town hall GOP Sen. Joni Ernst faced concerns from town hall attendees over potential cuts to Medicaid and SNAP programs as a result of President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill, saying at one point, 'Well, we all are going to die,' and insisting that those who are eligible for Medicaid will continue to receive payments. 01:12 - Source: CNN Fareed Zakaria breaks down Trump's tariff battle CNN's Fareed Zakaria breaks down what's going on with President Donald Trump's battle with the Supreme Court over tariffs. 00:58 - Source: CNN President Trump's timeline for things seems to almost always be 'in two weeks' President Donald Trump told reporters it will take about 'two weeks' to determine whether Russian President Vladimir Putin is serious about ending the war in Ukraine. That two week timeline, CNN's Abby Phillip says, is a familiar one. 01:48 - Source: CNN President Trump is on a pardoning spree President Donald Trump used his pardon power to grant clemency to a wave of individuals who had been convicted of crimes that range from public corruption, guns and even maritime-related offenses, according to multiple officials. CNN's Kaitlan Collins reports. 00:53 - Source: CNN Trump responds to Wall Street term 'TACO': Trump Always Chickens Out President Donald Trump was asked about "TACO," an acronym that means "Trump Always Chickens Out," which is used by Wall Street workers for his on-and-off approach to tariffs. Calling it "the nastiest question," Trump defended his tariff policy by calling it "negotiation." 01:13 - Source: CNN Harvard students and faculty speak out against Trump Harvard students and faculty spoke to CNN ahead of commencement as Donald Trump said the university should cap foreign enrollment. The Trump administration has recently sought to cancel $100 million in contracts with the school. 02:03 - Source: CNN

The Supreme Court's blessedly narrow decision about religion in the workplace, explained
The Supreme Court's blessedly narrow decision about religion in the workplace, explained

Vox

time12 minutes ago

  • Vox

The Supreme Court's blessedly narrow decision about religion in the workplace, explained

is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. In 2018, shortly before Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation shifted the Supreme Court drastically to the right, Democratic Justice Elena Kagan laid out her strategy to keep her Court from becoming too ideological or too partisan. The secret, she said, is to take 'big questions and make them small.' Since then, Kagan and her Democratic colleagues have had mixed success persuading their colleagues to decide cases narrowly when they could hand right-wing litigants a sweeping victory. The Court has largely transformed its approach to religion, for example, though it does occasionally hand down religion cases that end less with a bang than with a whimper. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission will likely be remembered as such a whimper. The opinion is unanimous, and it is authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of Kagan's few fellow Democratic justices. The case could have ended in a sweeping decision that severely undermined the rights of many workers. Instead, Sotomayor's opinion focuses on a very narrow distinction between how Wisconsin law treats some religious groups as compared to others. Catholic Charities involved a Wisconsin law that exempts some nonprofits from paying unemployment taxes. This exemption applies only to employers that operate 'primarily for religious purposes.' Wisconsin's state supreme court determined that a 'religious purpose' includes activities like holding worship services or providing religious education, but it does not include secular services like feeding the poor, even if those secular activities are motivated by religion. Related The Supreme Court is leading a Christian conservative revolution The upshot is that Catholic Charities — an organization that is run by the Catholic Church but focuses primarily on secular charitable work — was not exempt from paying unemployment taxes. Sotomayor's decision reverses the state supreme court, so Catholic Charities will now receive an exemption. The Court largely avoids a fight over when businesses with a religious identity can ignore the law In a previous era, the Court was very cautious about permitting religious organizations to claim exemptions, in part because doing so would give some businesses 'an advantage over their competitors.' Such exemptions could also potentially permit employers with a religious identity to exploit their workers. In Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor (1985), for example, the Court considered a religious cult that operated a wide range of commercial businesses. These businesses paid no cash salaries or wages, although they did claim to give workers food, clothing, and shelter. The cult sought an exemption from minimum wage laws and similar workplace protections, but the Court disagreed. A too-broad decision in Catholic Charities could have potentially undermined decisions like Alamo Foundation, by giving some employers a broad right to ignore laws protecting their workers. But Sotomayor's opinion reads like it was crafted to hand Catholic Charities the narrowest possible victory. Under the state supreme court's decision in Catholic Charities, Sotomayor writes, a church-run nonprofit that does entirely secular charity work may not receive an exemption from paying unemployment taxes. But a virtually identical nonprofit that does the exact same work but also engages in 'proselytization' or limits its services to members of the same faith would receive an exemption. This distinction, Sotomayor says, violates the Supreme Court's long-standing rule that the government 'may not 'officially prefe[r]' one religious denomination over another.' The state may potentially require all charities to pay unemployment taxes. But it cannot treat religious charities that seek to convert people, or that limit their services to members of one faith, differently from religious charities that do not do this. In Sotomayor's words, an organization's 'eligibility for the exemption ultimately turns on inherently religious choices (namely, whether to proselytize or serve only co-religionists).' The crux of Sotomayor's opinion is that the decision whether to try to convert people, or whether to serve non-Catholics, is an inherently 'theological' choice. And states cannot treat different religious organizations differently because of their theological choices. Unfortunately, Sotomayor's opinion, which is a brief 15 pages, does not really define the term 'theological.' So it is likely that future courts will have to wrestle with whether other laws that treat some organizations differently do so because of theological differences or for some other reason. It's not hard to imagine a cult like the one in Alamo Foundation claiming that it has a theological objection to paying the minimum wage. But the Catholic Charities opinion also does not explicitly undermine decisions like Alamo Foundation. Nor does it embrace a more sweeping approach proposed by dissenting justices in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, who argued that nonprofits whose 'motivations are religious' may claim an exemption — regardless of what that nonprofit actually does.

AOC Scrambles New York City Mayoral Race With Endorsement
AOC Scrambles New York City Mayoral Race With Endorsement

Newsweek

time14 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

AOC Scrambles New York City Mayoral Race With Endorsement

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made her endorsement in New York City's mayoral race as more progressive Democrats in the city work to consolidate support against front-running former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Why It Matters Ocasio-Cortez remains popular with younger, more progressive voters in New York City, so her support could convince some of those voters to head to the polls for the June 24 primary. Whoever prevails in the primary would become the favorite to win in November, as the city remains a Democratic stronghold. What To Know The progressive congresswoman announced in The New York Times that she is ranking Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, who has polled second behind Cuomo and emerged as a favorite among many left-leaning voters, first in the Democratic primary. New York City uses ranked choice voting in their local elections. She said she will be ranking New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams second, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander third, former Comptroller Scott Stringer fourth and state Senator Zellnor Myrie fifth in her endorsement, the Times reported. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York speaks during a rally in Denver on March 21, 2025. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York speaks during a rally in Denver on March 21, 2025. JASON CONNOLLY/AFP via Getty Images "Assemblymember Mamdani has demonstrated a real ability on the ground to put together a coalition of working-class New Yorkers that is strongest to lead the pack," Ocasio-Cortez told the newspaper. "In the final stretch of the race, we need to get very real about that." Newsweek reached out to the Mamdani and Cuomo campaigns, as well as Ocasio-Cortez's office, for comment via email. Cuomo has established a polling lead over other candidates and is viewed as the leader with less than a month until the primary, as progressives seek to rally behind other candidates to prevent him from becoming the party's nominee because of his more moderate policy positions. A recent Emerson College poll found Cuomo and Mamdani as the top two Democratic candidates. On the first round of voting, 35 percent of respondents said they'd vote for Cuomo, while 23 percent would back Mamdani. By the final round, however, Cuomo had support from 54 percent of respondents, while Mamdani had 46 percent. The poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters from May 23-26 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Cuomo resigned as governor in 2021 after a report from Attorney General Letitia James' office alleged that he sexually harassed multiple female employees and created a toxic working environment, allegations Cuomo has denied. In May, he accused the Trump administration of "election interference" after The New York Times reported it launched a criminal investigation into whether Cuomo lied to Congress about his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mamdani has engaged more progressive voters with a more left-leaning platform, emphasizing issues like a rent freeze to deal with rising rent and housing in the city and the establishment of a network of city-owned grocery stores intended to combat rising grocery costs for New Yorkers. Ocasio-Cortez's endorsement comes just one day after the Democratic candidates faced off in their first debate, during which each sought to portray themselves as the strongest to lead the city of more than 8 million people. "I am Donald Trump's worst nightmare, as a progressive Muslim immigrant who actually fights for the things that I believe in and the difference between myself and Andrew Cuomo," Mamdani said during the debate. What People Are Saying New York City mayoral candidate and Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, in a post on X, formerly Twitter: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a once-in-a-generation leader who has led the fight for working people in Congress. In 2018, she shocked the world and transformed our politics. On June 24, with @AOC's support and this movement behind us, we will do the same." Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told The New York Times: "Even if the entire left coalesced around any one candidate, an ideological coalition is still insufficient for us to win. We have to have a true working-class coalition." What Happens Next The New York City mayoral primary is set for Tuesday June 24. The winner will face off against a Republican, as well as Mayor Eric Adams, who is seeking reelection as an independent, in November.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store