With both the House of Representatives and the Senate narrowly controlled by Republicans, effective opposition to President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda has seemingly only manifested in one space: the judicial system.
Nearly every week, Democratic attorneys general across the country are filing lawsuits against the Trump administration over various policies implemented by the federal government.
“The Democratic AGs believe deeply in the rule of law and our Constitution, and we all took an oath to protect both of those,” Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes told the Washington Examiner in an interview. “We’re committed to making sure that the people of our states and our constitutions are protected.”
Some in the Democratic Party have expressed frustration that their elected lawmakers in the House and Senate are not doing enough to oppose Trump’s second-term agenda. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) received widespread anger from grassroots Democrats over his flip on the GOP bill to fund the government through September as many Democrats viewed a shutdown as the one bargaining chip they could use to resist.
When asked why they have not opposed Trump with a stronger force, Democratic lawmakers in Washington typically say that they are in the minority and cannot do much, but Democratic attorneys general have the ability to challenge Trump in a way that members of Congress cannot.
During Trump’s first administration, Democratic attorneys general filed more than 100 lawsuits against his policies, and they found success, winning 80% of them.
With Democrats out of power in Washington for at least the next two years, Democratic attorneys general have stepped into the resistance role once again. Since Trump’s inauguration in January, they have held daily Zoom calls to discuss legal action against the administration.
Now, hardly a week goes by without a new lawsuit filed by Democratic attorneys general against a Trump order.
“I don’t wake up every morning dying to sue the president of the United States or his administration,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin told the Hill. “If he’s operating lawfully, we’re not going to challenge it. But when he violates the law, we’re not going to hesitate to protect our residents.”
A coalition of Democratic attorneys general first filed a lawsuit against Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship. After being sworn into office earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order overhauling birthright citizenship in the U.S. despite it being a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment.
Several attorneys general, including Mayes, Platkin, and California Attorney General Rob Bonta have vowed to uphold the right and find legal routes to fight the order.
“Birthright citizenship is a right expressly guaranteed under the Constitution,” Bonta posted on X. “It’s disappointing that the President chose to disregard the Constitution and attempt to invalidate this right as one of his first acts in office.”
Birthright citizenship has been granted in the U.S. since the country’s inception. It was codified with the 14th Amendment in the wake of the Civil War in a slew of Reconstruction amendments to ensure that former slaves, who were not considered citizens in some Southern states, would be considered as such.
“If you wanted to identify one [executive order] that was a very clear and blatant attack on the Constitution, that would be the birthright citizenship case and the birthright citizenship executive order,” Mayes said.
“Section one of the 14th Amendment is very clear that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States,” she added. “Full stop. That’s what it says. It’s black-letter law, right there in the Constitution, and it took a Reagan-appointed judge 25 minutes to call it blatantly unconstitutional.”
American citizenship for those born in the U.S. to noncitizens was held up in the Supreme Court in the 19th-century landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Fourteen state attorneys general have also filed lawsuits against billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk and his leadership of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency. They argue that his role violates the Constitution because he was not appointed or confirmed by the Senate.
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez spearheaded the lawsuit and filed it along with other Democratic attorneys general in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
“Although our constitutional system was designed to prevent the abuses of an 18th century monarch, the instruments of unchecked power are no less dangerous in the hands of a 21st century tech baron,” the plaintiffs said in the lawsuit.
Mayes said the “appointment clause is very clear that if the president is going to appoint someone with as great a power as Elon Musk clearly has, that position has to be created by Congress, and the individual has to be advised and consented to by Congress.”
“And neither of those two things have happened with Elon Musk and DOGE,” Mayes added.
EIGHT TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN
Some of the efforts of the Democratic attorneys general have already been successful in putting a stop to some of the Trump administration’s actions. Their challenge against Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order was halted shortly after they filed suit. The federal judge who issued a restraining order in the case called the president’s directive “blatantly unconstitutional.” The question will head to the Supreme Court, justices of which agreed to hear the case.
“We feel like we’re just doing our jobs,” Mayes said. “And I personally feel fortunate to be in this time and in this place and to have a chance to fight for the people of Arizona and my country.”
