How have state attorneys general coordinated lawsuits against Trump administration policies in 2025–2026?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
State attorneys general weaponized coordinated multistate litigation in 2025–2026 to blunt and block many Trump administration policies, mounting dozens of coalition suits that used Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional claims to seek emergency relief and long-term injunctions [1] [2]. Leading Democratic attorneys general organized large, repeatable coalitions—frequently naming 20–23 states—to challenge funding freezes, immigration conditions on grants, and efforts to defund independent agencies [3] [4] [5].
1. The multistate playbook: mass coalitions and repeat filings
Attorneys general favor filing as multistate coalitions because broad state participation strengthens standing, concentrates resources, and increases the political and legal weight of challenges; by mid‑2025 dozens of multistate suits had been filed and advocates counted roughly 24 notable coalition suits at one checkpoint and more than 300 federal lawsuits involving states by summer 2025 [2] [1]. States routinely assemble 18–23 co‑plaintiffs for high‑profile challenges—placing these cases in federal courts across multiple circuits and sometimes prompting emergency moves up to the Supreme Court [3] [2].
2. Common legal targets and theories
The litigation has clustered around a few repeatable targets: unilateral executive directives and OMB rules that freeze or condition federal grants, immigration‑related enforcement conditions attached to transportation and FEMA funds, and novel administrative maneuvers to hollow independent agencies like the CFPB—all attacked as violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, appropriations law, or the Constitution [3] [6] [5]. For example, coalitions argued OMB’s pause on federal assistance unlawfully halted statutorily directed funding and that attaching immigration conditions exceeded agency authority [3] [6]; separate suits sought to block what states described as efforts to defund the CFPB by exploiting accounting arguments about Federal Reserve “profits” [5].
3. Who leads and how coalitions form
High‑profile AGs act as conveners: California’s Rob Bonta, New York’s Letitia James, Rhode Island’s Peter Neronha and others repeatedly led coalitions that included a core of 18–23 states plus D.C., with press releases enumerating participating offices and legal claims [7] [4] [3]. Those lead offices file initial complaints, coordinate media messaging through state press releases, and often split responsibilities for different suits—education grants, SNAP or CFPB funding—so states with particular stakes take point [7] [8].
4. Tactical toolbox: emergency motions, TROs, and volume litigation
States lean heavily on emergency litigation tactics—motions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions—seeking immediate stays of admin actions, even as longer merits battles proceed; courts granted and vacated such relief in multiple instances, and the high volume of filings creates opportunities to win piecemeal policy pauses while broader appeals play out [2] [9]. Some states—Oregon and Michigan among them—pursued dozens of suits in a single year, reflecting a deliberate strategy of litigation ubiquity to force policy changes or buy time for affected programs [10] [9].
5. Political aims, implicit agendas and resource-sharing
Beyond law, these coalitions serve overt political aims: protecting state budgets and services, defending constituent populations, and checking what state officials cast as executive overreach; implicitly, coordinated litigation also boosts national party messaging and raises the profiles of lead AGs preparing for broader political fights [1] [7]. Source material is dominated by AG press releases and advocacy summaries that highlight legal victories and harms to state programs, which means public-facing coordination is as much about shaping congressional and public opinion as it is about narrow legal remedies [3] [8].
6. Limits of the record and open questions
Available reporting documents case counts, named coalitions and claims but provides limited transparent evidence about internal strategy meetings, funding and cost‑sharing arrangements, or the day‑to‑day coordination mechanics among AG offices beyond press statements and filings; sources describe who led suits and what claims were made but not the private coordination apparatus in detail [3] [1] [2]. Legal outcomes remain mixed—some emergency relief was won, some decisions were reversed—and the trajectory of appeals through 2026 will determine whether this model yields durable doctrinal shifts or remains a tactical brake on administration policy [2] [9].