"We don't have the luxury of choosing. We have one simple position: If Trump breaks the law and it hurts the state of California, we sue him. If he doesn't break the law, we don't. So if he decides that he's going to issue an executive order on Inauguration Day, after he just raised his right hand and swore to defend the Constitution, then goes into another room to issue an executive order that violates the Constitution, we sue."
"He decides he's going to issue an Office of Management and Budget memo that tries to withhold $3 trillion worth of critical funding to the states that Congress has already appropriated, we sue. He decides he's going to impose unlawful tariffs, or invade the privacy of Americans through DOGE's access to bank accounts and Social Security information, we sue. He decides that he's going to deploy the National Guard unlawfully to states, then we respond."
California's attorney general leads an aggressive litigation strategy against presidential actions that allegedly violate law and injure the state. Twenty-three Democratic state attorneys general coordinate to serve as a legal bulwark against perceived constitutional assaults. The office files lawsuits whenever federal actions—such as unconstitutional executive orders, withholding appropriated funds via OMB memos, unlawful tariffs, privacy invasions through access to financial and Social Security data, or improper National Guard deployments—harm California. The approach positions the state at the outer boundary of federal authority to push back, cabin executive power, and protect state interests and constitutional limits.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]