What legal challenges have governors filed against presidential federalization orders since 2024?
Executive summary
Since 2024, challenges to what critics call “presidential federalization orders” have proliferated — but the record shows that most formal litigation has been brought by state attorneys general or multistate coalitions rather than governors filing suit in their own names, even when governors publicly condemned or mobilized state power against federal moves [1] [2]. Reporting documents a steady pattern: governors often direct policy responses, issue public threats, or coordinate intergovernmental resistance while state AGs lead the courtroom fights over executive orders, OMB directives, and other unilateral presidential actions [3] [4].
1. The litigation landscape: states versus the federal executive
Multistate litigation against federal actions has become routinized in the post‑2020 era, with coordinated AG coalitions suing to block or unwind executive directives on everything from environmental rules to pandemic mandates; databases and trackers catalog dozens of such suits and make clear that attorneys general — not governors personally — are the primary litigants in these disputes [1] [2]. Scholars and practitioners note that this surge in state suits reflects both partisan coordination and an institutional preference for AGs as the vehicle to seek injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional claims [5] [1].
2. Concrete challenges since 2024 often led by AGs, not governors
Since 2024, high‑profile legal challenges to presidential actions have included a 2025 coalition suing over an administration policy to pause most federal assistance funding that named the Office of Management and Budget’s directive as unlawful — a suit brought by 22 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia, not filed in the governor’s name [4] [6]. Similarly, 19 states sued to block a 2025 presidential executive order on voting rules in federal elections; that complaint was filed by state attorneys general arguing the order usurped states’ constitutional authority over elections [7]. These cases illustrate the prevailing pattern since 2024: governors provide political leadership and public denunciations, while AGs carry constitutional and statutory claims into federal court [7] [4].
3. Governors’ visible, but mostly indirect, legal role
Governors have played decisive political and administrative roles when federalization questions arise — from publicly opposing EPA standards in coordinated letters from 16 Republican governors to signing state laws that create new review processes for federal rules — yet the sources show governors more often catalyze litigation through public pressure, policy changes, or by urging their AGs to sue rather than suing themselves [3]. The distinction matters legally: standing doctrines, sovereign interests, and procedural norms make attorneys general the more common plaintiffs in suits challenging federal executive actions [5].
4. Federalization episodes that provoked state pushback
Reporting highlights several moments labeled by observers as “federalization” that produced state resistance: for example, the controversial use of federal authority to take control of local policing in Washington, D.C., which prompted sharp gubernatorial rhetoric and legal scrutiny of the administration’s statutory authority to federalize local forces [8] [9]. While governors like Maine’s Janet Mills publicly threatened courtroom responses, the documentary record available here ties the actual filings to state legal offices rather than governors personally [9] [8].
5. Legal theories, courts, and the strategic calculus
State challenges since 2024 have relied on a mix of constitutional separation‑of‑powers claims, statutory preemption arguments, and Administrative Procedure Act challenges; recent Supreme Court doctrinal shifts — such as decisions expanding opportunities to bring agency challenges — have encouraged more suits and altered strategic calculations about timing and remedies [9]. Plaintiffs typically ask for declaratory relief and injunctions and have seen mixed success, a pattern that feeds continued litigation as states view courts as the primary check on unilateral presidential action [9] [1].
6. Limits of the reporting and what cannot be asserted
The sources provided document many multistate suits and explicit gubernatorial oppositions, but they do not identify a catalog of governors who personally filed lawsuits in their own names challenging presidential federalization orders since 2024; therefore, it cannot be asserted from these sources that governors themselves were the principal named plaintiffs in those cases — rather, AGs and state coalitions were [1] [2] [4]. Where governors did appear — through letters, statements, or signing state laws — the records show political leadership and coordination more than direct courtroom filings [3] [9].