Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Multistate lawsuits against the federal government during the Trump administration, 2017-2021

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Trump Administration (first term)

US-WhiteHouse-Logo.svg

President Donald Trump
Vice President Mike Pence
Cabinet • White House staff • Transition team • Trump's second term
Policy positions
Domestic affairs: Abortion • Crime and justice • Education • Energy and the environment • Federal courts • Firearms policy • First Amendment • Healthcare • Immigration • Infrastructure • LGBTQ issues • Marijuana • Puerto Rico • Social welfare programs • Veterans • Voting issues
Economic affairs and regulations: Agriculture and food policy • Budget • Financial regulation • Jobs • Social Security • Taxes • Trade
Foreign affairs and national security: Afghanistan • Arab states of the Persian Gulf • China • Cuba • Iran • Iran nuclear deal • Islamic State and terrorism • Israel and Palestine • Latin America • Military • NATO • North Korea • Puerto Rico • Russia • Syria • Syrian refugees • Technology, privacy, and cybersecurity
Polling indexes: Opinion polling during the Trump administration

At least 156 multistate lawsuits were filed against the federal government during President Donald Trump's first term in office from January 2017 to January 2021. A multistate lawsuit is a lawsuit initially filed by one state against the federal government that is later joined by multiple states. For example, in 2018, New York filed a lawsuit in federal court against the repeal of the Open Internet Order. New York was joined by 21 states in the lawsuit. This was a multistate lawsuit.[1]

Democratic attorneys general (AGs) filed 35 multistate lawsuits against the federal government in 2017, according to Paul Nolette, a political science professor at Marquette University. AGs filed at least eight lawsuits in 2018. In comparison, from 2009 to 2017, Republican AGs brought 46 multistate lawsuits against the federal government during the Obama administration.[2][3]

Nolette, whose experience includes tracking multistate lawsuits starting in the 1980s, commented on the increase in lawsuits filed during the Trump administration. In October 2017 he said, "It's quite dramatic just in terms of the sheer number of multistate lawsuits that have picked up over the last several months. But the thing that really stands out to me that does seem to be really a new development is just the speed. Even in contrast to the [George] W. Bush administration, the Democratic AGs – 16 or 18 of them – are this solid coalition that constantly communicate with one another about strategies and getting other AGs to sign on. It's almost like a rapid-response group now in the way that it wasn't before."[4]

This page includes a list of multistate lawsuits filed from 2017-2021. Click on the links below for more information.

Multistate lawsuits by administration

Please contact Ballotpedia at editor@ballotpedia.org with multistate lawsuits that should be included on this chart.

Multistate lawsuits by topic

The following chart lists some, but not all, of the multistate lawsuits filed against the federal government from 2017-2021. Please contact Ballotpedia at editor@ballotpedia.org with multistate lawsuits that should be included on this chart.

Multistate lawsuits against the federal government, 2017-2021
Lawsuit Subject Date filed
State of New York v. United States Department of Labor Association Health Plans and ACA Thursday, July 26, 2018
New York v. Mnuchin State and local tax deductions Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Washington v. United States Separating children from parents crossing the border illegally Wednesday, June 27, 2018
State of California v. United States Environmental Protection Agency and E. Scott Pruitt Vehicle Emission Standards Tuesday, May 01, 2018
Texas v. Nielsen DACA Tuesday, May 01, 2018
State of New York v. E. Scott Pruitt Methane from Drillers Thursday, April 05, 2018
State of New York v. U.S. Department of Commerce and Bureau of the Census Census citizenship question Tuesday, April 03, 2018
Texas v. U.S. Affordable Care Act Monday, February 26, 2018
State of New York v. E. Scott Pruitt Waters of the U.S. Rule Tuesday, February 06, 2018
State of New York v. Federal Communications Commission Net Neutrality Tuesday, January 16, 2018
State of California v. Scott Pruitt Clean Air Act Tuesday, December 05, 2017
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security ICE officers Tuesday, October 17, 2017
State of Maryland v. U.S. Department of Education Education accountability standards; Gainful employment rule Tuesday, October 17, 2017
State of California v. Donald J. Trump Cost-sharing reduction payments Friday, October 13, 2017
State of Washington v. Trump Travel ban Wednesday, October 11, 2017
State of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security DACA Monday, September 11, 2017
State of New York v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Gas mileage standards Monday, September 11, 2017
State of New York v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ozone rule Tuesday, August 01, 2017
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Energy Borrower Defense Rule Thursday, July 06, 2017
State of California v. Perry Energy efficiency requirements for freezers, air conditioners, and other appliances Tuesday, June 13, 2017
State of California v. Zinke Coal lease ban Tuesday, May 09, 2017
State of New York v. Perry Energy efficiency requirements for ceiling fans Friday, March 31, 2017
State of Washington v. Trump Travel ban Monday, March 13, 2017

Noteworthy multistate lawsuits

Ballotpedia provided coverage of some multistate lawsuits that gained national attention in the media or became major issues in the course of a political campaign. Information on 13 such lawsuits is provided below. Details on the lawsuits are organized by topic.

Census

Citizenship question

Action by Trump administration: On March 26, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced that a question on citizenship status would be included in the 2020 census. In a statement, the commerce department said that "having citizenship data at the census block level will permit more effective enforcement of the [Voting Rights Act], and [Secretary of Commerce Wilbur] Ross determined that obtaining complete and accurate information to meet this legitimate government purpose outweighs the limited potential adverse impacts."[5]

Lawsuit: On April 3, 2018, 17 states (listed below) and several municipal government entities filed suit in federal district court against the commerce department, the census bureau, and Ross in his capacity as secretary of commerce. The plaintiffs alleged that the inclusion of a citizenship status question in the census would discourage "participation in immigrant communities, because of concerns about how the federal government will use citizenship information," thereby compromising the accuracy of the population counts, which are used in determining apportionment of the Congress, allocation of presidential electors to the Electoral College, and "the distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds to states, local governments, and other grantees."[6]

On July 26, 2018, Judge Jesse Furman, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled that the plaintiffs "plausibly allege that Secretary Ross' decision to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 census was motivated by discriminatory animus and that its application will result in a discriminatory effect," allowing the suit to proceed. Furman also wrote, "None of that is to say that Plaintiffs will ultimately prevail in their challenge to Secretary Ross' decision to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 census. As noted, the Enumeration Clause and the Census Act grant him broad authority over the census, and Plaintiffs may not ultimately be able to prove that he exercised that authority in an unlawful manner. Put another way, the question at this stage of the proceedings is not whether the evidence supports Plaintiffs’ claims, but rather whether Plaintiffs may proceed with discovery and, ultimately, to summary judgment or trial on their claims."[7]

On January 15, 2019, Furman issued a ruling, holding that Ross violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by, in Furman's view, not properly following APA procedure when including a question regarding citizenship status in the 2020 census.[8][9]

SCOTUS appeal: The DOJ appealed to the United States Supreme Court and requested that the court bypass an appellate court decision in order to issue a ruling in time for the 2020 census. On February 15, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear the case. Oral argument took place April 23, 2019.[10]

The court ruled 5-4 to affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the agency for further proceedings. The justices ruled that the Trump administration's decision to add the citizenship question to the census did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act, but that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross' rationale for the decision was inconsistent with the administrative record.[11]

To read more about the case, click here.

Education

Borrower defense rule

See also: Federal policy on education, 2017-2020

Action by Trump administration: On June 14, 2017, the U.S. Department of Education announced it would be convening new rulemaking committees for two regulations issued under the Obama administration, one on borrower defense to student loan repayment and one on gainful employment. The borrower defense rule established guidance for students seeking loan forgiveness in the event of fraud by a college or university. The gainful employment rule suspended federal funding for colleges and universities that consistently graduate a certain percentage of students with high debt and low incomes. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos delayed the implementation start date of the borrower defense rule, which was scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2017. The gainful employment rule had already gone into effect. DeVos stated that the previous rulemaking processes resulted in "a muddled process that's unfair to students and schools" and that the aim of a second rulemaking process was to "protect students from predatory practices while also providing clear, fair and balanced rules for colleges and universities to follow."[12] [13][14]

Lawsuit: On July 6, 2017, the attorneys general of 18 states and the District of Columbia filed suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia against DeVos. The suit alleged that by announcing a delay of the regulation's implementation just two weeks before its scheduled July 1 rollout without providing a comment period or justifying the decision based on specific concerns about the regulation's impact or the California lawsuit, the Department of Education had violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The suit sought an overturn of the delay and immediate implementation of the regulation.[15]

Ruling: In September 2018, Judge Randolph D. Moss, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., wrote that DeVos’ decision to delay the rule was arbitrary and capricious. Moss’ final decision on the rule came in a lawsuit brought against the Department of Education by the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools. Moss ruled that the group was unable to show that the rule would cause harm to the for-profit schools it was representing. He ordered the rule to take effect.[16]

Energy and environment

Delayed implementation of 2015 ozone standard

See also: Federal policy on ozone standards, 2017

Action by Trump administration: In June 2017, the EPA announced it would delay for one year the implementation of the 2015 standard of 70 parts per billion (ppb) until October 2018. Under the original implementation plan, the EPA was slated to determine nonattainment areas in June 2017 and to finalize its decisions in October 2017. In a statement, Pruitt said that the delay would allow the EPA to work with states and localities to implement the standard in a way that improved air quality and would not interfere with local decision-making or negatively affect economic growth. Pruitt further stated that the delay would provide flexibility for states and localities to avoid being designated as nonattainment areas, which Pruitt argued would result in reduced infrastructure spending, more regulatory requirements, and higher business costs in these areas.[17] On August 2, 2017, the EPA announced it would reverse its delay of the standards and would move forward with its implementation. In a notice published in the Federal Register, EPA officials wrote, "The EPA has continued to discuss and work with states concerning designations, and now understands that the information gaps that formed the basis of the extension may not be as expansive as we previously believed." EPA officials added that the agency would consider state-specific or regional delays for the standard.[18]

Lawsuit: On August 1, 2017, fifteen states sued the EPA for its decision to delay implementation of the 2015 ozone standard. The lawsuit was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to overturn Pruitt's extension for states to comply with the 2015 standard. On August 2, 2017, the court permitted the 15 states to defend the standard as intervenors, which allowed the states to be active parties in the litigation with a right to appeal.[19][20]

Ruling: On August 4, 2017, this case was consolidated with two similar lawsuits. The EPA moved to dismiss the case as moot after making the requested designation. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the request and dismissed the case on January 2, 2019.[21]

Firearms policy

Distribution of CAD files used to produce firearms via 3D printers

See also: Federal policy on laws governing guns and firearms, 2017-2020

Action by Trump administration: On July 27, 2018, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, a division of the United States Department of State, published a temporary regulatory amendment allowing for the dissemination of Computer Aided Design (CAD) files used for the production of firearms by 3D printers. This change was in accordance with a settlement agreement between the Department of State and Defense Distributed, a private company that possessed the CAD files and filed suit against the federal government, whose previous position had been to disallow the dissemination of such files by including them on the United States Munitions List (USML) and making them subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). As part of the settlement, the federal government agreed to remove the CAD files from ITAR jurisdiction.[22]

Lawsuit: On July 30, 2018, the attorneys general of eight states (listed below) and the District of Columbia filed suit in federal district court against the United States Department of State, alleging that the Trump administration, in allowing for the dissemination of the CAD files in question, had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs requested a "declaration that the 'temporary modification' of the USML Category I (which constitutes a final agency action) is invalid, and an injunction requiring the [federal government] to rescind the temporary modification and refrain from acting in a manner inconsistent with such recission." On July 31, 2018, Judge Robert Lasnik, of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, granted a temporary restraining order barring the release of the CAD files pending further proceedings in the case. On August 27, 2018, Lasnik issued a preliminary injunction, extending the prohibition against the release of the CAD files.[23][24]

Ruling: On November 12, 2019, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled that the Trump administration had violated the APA by amending the USML to allow for the distribution of the CAD files. The court said that the decision was "arbitrary and capiricious" and did not provide justification for the change.[25] The defendants filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit on January 14, 2020.[26] The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal on July 21.[27]

Healthcare

See also: Federal policy on healthcare, 2017-2020

Affordable Care Act

See also: California v. Texas

Action by Congress: On December 22, 2017, President Donald Trump signed HR 1—the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act—into law. The law, among other things, eliminated the ACA's individual mandate beginning in 2019.[28] The individual mandate required every individual to obtain health insurance and established fines for those who did not. As part of the tax law, Congress ended the penalty starting in 2019. Although the individual mandate remains, the government cannot enforce the mandate without a penalty.[29]

Lawsuit: On February 26, 2018, 20 states filed a lawsuit against the federal government for continuing to enforce the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare. The lawsuit, which was filed in federal district court in the Northern District of Texas, claimed that the ACA was unconstitutional because the individual mandate was removed, invalidating the entire law. The lawsuit stated, “Once the heart of the ACA—the individual mandate—is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the ACA must also fall."[30][29] Paxton said, “The U.S. Supreme Court already admitted that an individual mandate without a tax penalty is unconstitutional. With no remaining legitimate basis for the law, it is time that Americans are finally free from the stranglehold of Obamacare, once and for all."[30]

District Court Ruling: On December 14, 2018, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge Reed O'Connor ruled that the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) individual mandate was unconstitutional, and, because it was a critical feature of the law, the ACA was invalid.[31]

O’Connor wrote that the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate because of Congress' power to tax. As part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was signed into law on December 22, 2017, Congress removed the fine for not obtaining health insurance. O’Connor ruled that because the individual mandate was not a tax, it was unconstitutional. He further decided that because the mandate was a critical feature of the law, "the remaining provisions of the ACA are inseverable and therefore invalid."[31]

The ruling had no immediate impact on ACA insurance plans. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement, "We expect this ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Pending the appeal process, the law remains in place.” Seema Verma, the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, added, "There is no impact to current coverage or coverage in a 2019 plan."[32]

Appeals Court Ruling: On December 18, 2019, a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the individual mandate portion of the ACA was unconstitutional. The appeals court sent the lawsuit back to the Northern District of Texas, asking the judges to consider how much of the ACA could remain with the individual mandate considered unconstitutional.[33]

SCOTUS appeal: On March 2, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The court heard oral argument in the case on November 10, 2020. On June 17, 2021, the court ruled that Texas lacked standing to bring the lawsuit.[34] Click here for more information.

Association Health Plans

Action by Trump administration: On January 4, 2018, in accordance with an October 12, 2017, executive order issued by President Donald Trump, the Department of Labor released a proposed rule regarding Association Health Plans (AHPs) on January 4, 2018. The rule proposed expanding the criteria based on which employers and sole proprietors could join together to offer one group health plan to employees. The rule proposed exempting small employers who form such associations from certain requirements that apply to the individual and small-group insurance markets, but not the large-group market, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Employers would be exempt from providing plans that cover the 10 essential health benefits as defined by the ACA and would not be required to follow the requirement that enrollees in plans offered by an insurer within these markets be grouped into a single risk pool. The rule would preserve the ACA's prohibitions against charging people higher premiums or denying coverage based on health status. The Department of Labor stated that the rule was open to a 60-day public comment period.[35]

Lawsuit: On July 26, 2018, eleven states and Washington, D.C., led by New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D), filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the Trump administration alleging that the U.S. Department of Labor violated the Administrative Procedures Act when it released a proposed rule regarding Association Health Plans (AHPs) on January 4, 2018. The attorneys general asked the court to declare the rule invalid.[36][37]

Ruling: On March 28, 2019, Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against the Trump administration rule. Bates held the rule was unlawful and "clearly an end-run around the A.C.A." Bates said the Trump administration had improperly applied the statutory definition of "employer" and ignored the language and purpose of the ACA and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.[38]

Appeal: On April 30, 2019, the Department of Labor appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On November 14, 2019, the court agreed to hear oral arguments. The court did not release an opinion by the time the Biden administration began.[39]

Immigration

Separating children from parents crossing the border illegally

See also: Federal policy on border security, 2017-2019

Action by Trump administration: On May 7, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration would prosecute parents who crossed the U.S. border illegally with their children. Sessions said, “I have put in place a zero tolerance policy for our Southwest border. If you cross the border illegally, we will prosecute you. It’s that simple. If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you make false statements to an immigration officer or file a fraudulent asylum claim, that’s a felony. If you help others to do so, that’s a felony, too. You’re going to jail. So if you’re going to come to this country, come here legally. Don’t come here illegally.” On June 20, 2018, President Donald Trump (R) signed an executive order addressing the separation of children from parents crossing the border illegally: "We’re going to be signing an executive order in a little while. We’re going to keep families together but we still have to maintain toughness or our country will be overrun by people, by crime, by all of the things that we don’t stand for and that we don’t want." Trump signed the executive order later that day. The order directed the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to keep detained families together. The order also called on the U.S. Department of Defense to assist in providing housing for families when detention centers are at capacity, according to Politico.

Lawsuit: On June 21, 2018, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) announced that Washington and 10 other states would file suit against the Trump administration over its policy of separating children from parents who cross the U.S. border illegally. Ferguson said, "We'll allege that the administration is violating constitutional due process rights of the parents and children by separating them as a matter of course and without any findings that the parent poses a threat to the children. The policy is also irrationally discriminatory in violation of constitutional guarantees of people protection, because it only targets people crossing our southern border, not any other entrance to the United States." The other states joining the lawsuit included Oregon, California, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota. Ferguson's office had planned to file the suit in federal district court on June 21, 2018, but postponed filing to amend the complaint to reflect Trump's June 20, 2018, executive order.[40] On June 26, six other states—Delaware, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia—joined the lawsuit, which was filed in federal district court in Seattle.[41][42]

Travel ban lawsuits

See also: Donald Trump's immigration executive order issued March 6, 2017 and Trump v. Hawaii

Action by Trump administration: On March 6, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States, that rescinded and replaced his January 27, 2017, executive order of the same name. The order suspended for 90 days entry into the United States for individuals from Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. The order also suspended refugee admissions to the United States for 120 days while the process was reviewed for additional national security measures that could be implemented. The order was set to go into effect on March 16, 2017. Differences from the January 27, 2017, order included removing Iraq from the list of countries subject to the entry suspension, specifying that current visa holders were not affected, removing the indefinite suspension on admitting Syrian refugees, and allowing entry for refugees who had already been granted asylum.

Lawsuit: On March 7, 2017, Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin (D) filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration's executive order on DACA in federal district court. Chin asked a federal judge to uphold the restraining order imposed on the previous executive order and apply it to the new one. The official complaint argued that the new executive order was also illegal because it would harm Muslim residents of Hawaii, the state's educational institutions, and its economy. The previous executive order faced a lawsuit that made similar arguments, filed primarily by attorneys general from Washington and Minnesota, and supported by 16 other Democratic attorneys general.[43]

Lawsuit: On March 9, 2017, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) filed a motion asking a federal judge to extend an existing injunction against the January 27, 2017, order to the new executive order. Ferguson said that while the ban was narrowed, it did not clear itself of constitutional problems.[44][45] Ferguson previously led the lawsuit against the initial executive order along with Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson; that lawsuit led to the temporary restraining order issued by federal district Judge James Robart.[44]

Rulings: On March 15, 2017, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson blocked implementation of the order with a nationwide temporary restraining order. Watson wrote, "It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam ... Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not." On March 30, Watson granted Hawaii's request to convert the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction, writing that the plaintiffs "met their burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success" on their claims. The injunction extended indefinitely the block against federal implementation of Section 2 and Section 6 of the executive order while the case worked its way through the courts.[46][47]

On March 30, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an appeal of Watson's decision in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were held before a three-judge panel of the court on May 15, 2017. At oral arguments, the federal government argued that the president had broad authority under immigration law to regulate the entry of non-citizens into the United States. Hawaii countered that the president's authority was not so broad as to allow him to issue an order that would take a "magic eraser to the entire" body of immigration law. In their questioning, the panel examined how much consideration, if any, the court should give President Donald Trump's statements he made as a candidate when evaluating the merits of the order.[48][49][50]

The Ninth Circuit issued its ruling on June 12, 2017, upholding the preliminary injunction issued by Watson. The panel found that in issuing the executive order, Trump exceeded the president's broad authority over immigration. President Trump did not "make a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States,'" the court wrote. The court found that the executive order also violated provisions of the law that prohibit nationality-based discrimination and that Trump did not follow the process outlined in federal law for setting a limit on the admission of refugees.[51]

On June 26, 2017, in a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court partially lifted the injunction and agreed to review the case. Oral arguments were set for October 2017. In its opinion, the court allowed enforcement of the executive order except in cases in which the individual has a bona fide relationship to the United States. This could be in the form of a familial relationship with someone legally present in the country or a job offer from an employer. The court announced that the case would be heard in October 2017. In its opinion, the court directed the parties involved to address the following question during oral arguments: "Whether the challenges to §2(c) [the suspension of entry] became moot on June 14, 2017."[52]

On September 25, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court removed oral arguments in this case from the court's calendar and asked the parties involved to file briefs addressing whether or not the case was moot in light of the expiration of Section 2 of the order—the suspension of entry for nationals of seven countries—on September 24, 2017. On October 5, 2017, the Trump administration filed a brief arguing that the case was moot because new travel restrictions issued on September 24, 2017, were "not substantially similar" to the challenged executive order. Hawaii submitted a brief on October 5, 2017, arguing that the case was not moot because the provision suspending entry for refugees was still in effect and because the administration had "previously informed this Court that the President is free to revise" the temporary nature of the order at any time.[53][54][55]

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) lawsuits

See also: Federal policy on DACA and DAPA, 2017-2020

Action by Trump administration: On September 5, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke had issued a memo rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that allows individuals who were brought to the United States without legal permission as children to receive relief from being deported for a period of time if they meet certain criteria. The program does not grant lawful status. The initial end date was scheduled for March 5, 2018.[56]

The memo described the reasoning behind the rescission of DACA as follows:

“ On June 29, 2017, Texas, along with several other states, sent a letter to Attorney General Sessions asserting that the original 2012 DACA memorandum is unlawful for the same reasons stated in the Fifth Circuit and district court opinions regarding DAPA and expanded DACA. The letter notes that if DHS does not rescind the DACA memo by September 5, 2017, the States will seek to amend the DAPA lawsuit to include a challenge to DACA.


The Attorney General sent a letter to the Department on September 4, 2017, articulating his legal determination that DACA 'was effectuated by the previous administration through executive action, without proper statutory authority and with no established end-date, after Congress' repeated rejection of proposed legislation that would have accomplished a similar result. Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.'[57]

”
—U.S. Department of Homeland Security[56]

Lawsuit: Sixteen state attorneys general initiated legal action against the rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program on September 6, 2017. The lawsuit argued that the memo rescinding DACA violated the Fifth Amendment because it "target[ed] individuals for discriminatory treatment based on their national origin, without lawful justification" and did not contain a prohibition against "the use of information contained in DACA applications and renewal requests for purposes of immigration enforcement." The lawsuit also argued that the federal agencies responsible for the memo "acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and otherwise not in accordance with law, and have abused their discretion" in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The lawsuit asked the court to place a preliminary injunction on the memo, which would prevent DACA from being rescinded.[58]

Rulings: The government moved to dismiss the lawsuit. The district court held arguments on the preliminary injunction and motion to dismiss on January 18, 2017.[59] On February 13, 2018, Judge Nicholas Garaufis issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the Trump administration's order ending the DACA program. The plaintiffs in the case filed suit to challenge that order. They argued in part that the Trump administration's order violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction to temporarily block the order while the case proceeded.[60] Garaufis ruled that while the administration possessed the legal authority to end the DACA program, its stated rationale in its September 2017 order could not survive judicial review. Under the APA, courts asked to review administrative decisions "must set aside action, findings, or conclusions that are, among other things, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." Garaufis wrote, "The question before the court is thus not whether [the administration] could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so." In this case, Garaufis wrote, the Trump administration's stated rationale for ending the DACA program was its belief that the program was unconstitutional. Garaufis ruled that the Obama administration's creation of the program was within its legal authority. "Because [the Trump administration's] conclusion was erroneous," Garaufis concluded, "the decision to end the DACA program cannot stand." The preliminary injunction requires the administration to continue processing DACA applications while the litigation is underway. Garaufis emphasized that his order did not mean that the administration was unable to lawfully rescind DACA on different grounds.[60]

Lawsuit: On September 11, 2017, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security challenging the rescission of DACA. Becerra said the lawsuit was filed separately from the one initiated by New York and 15 other state attorneys general because one-quarter of DACA recipients reside in California. "I think everyone recognizes the scope and breadth of the Trump decision to terminate DACA hits hardest here," Becerra said.[61] The lawsuit alleged that the memo rescinding DACA violated the Fifth Amendment because it did not contain sufficient assurances that the information contained in DACA applications would not be used in future immigration enforcement and because it "discriminated against DACA grantees in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment." The lawsuit also argued that the memo violated the Administrative Procedures Act because the agencies responsible for the memo issued it "without notice-and-comment rulemaking" and that the agencies "have acted arbitrarily and capriciously, have abused their discretion, have acted otherwise not in accordance with law, and have taken unconstitutional and unlawful action." The states claimed that the government had failed to turn over the entirety of the administrative record detailing how the administration made its decision to rescind DACA, and the district court ordered the government to turn over the remainder of the administrative record.[62]

Rulings: The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with the states, and the government appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On December 20, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the federal government, concluding that the district court could not order the government to produce more of the administrative record until it had ruled on the government's threshold arguments regarding the reviewability of its decision and the court's jurisdiction.[63]

Lawsuit: On May 1, 2018, Texas and six other states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for continuing to administer the DACA program. The states argued that DACA is unlawful and requires them to spend more money on healthcare, law enforcement, and education. They also argued that DACA has resulted in increased competition for jobs in their states. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.[64] Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) explained his decision to file the lawsuit, saying, "The multi-state coalition lawsuit we filed today is about the rule of law, not the wisdom of any particular immigration policy. The Constitution guarantees the American people the right to set their own immigration policies through their representatives in Congress. The federal executive branch lacks the power to unilaterally grant unlawfully present aliens lawful presence and work authorization."[65] In the lawsuit, Paxton argued that establishing DACA through an executive order was unconstitutional. The lawsuit stated, "The policy merits of immigration laws are debated in and decided by Congress. The Executive Branch does not exercise a lawmaking role. Its duty is to take care that the law is faithfully executed — substantive immigration law and procedural administrative law alike."[65] The lawsuit said that although the court "has authority to immediately rescind and cancel all DACA permits currently in existence because they are unlawful," the states would be satisfied if the federal government was ordered to stop issuing new permits and renewing existing ones. This would lead to the end of the program within two years as existing DACA permits expire.[65]

Taxes

See also: Federal policy on taxes, 2017-2018

Federal tax deduction for state and local taxes

Action by federal government: On December 22, 2017, President Donald Trump (R) signed HR 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, into law. The legislation included a provision allowing for the deduction of up to $10,000 in state and local sales, income, and property taxes for federal income tax purposes; this deduction is commonly referred to as the SALT deduction. Prior to the enactment of HR 1, SALT deductions were unlimited for those taxpayers itemizing their federal income tax deductions.[66]

Lawsuit: On July 17, 2018, the attorneys general for New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey filed suit in federal district court against the Trump administration, alleging that the $10,000 cap on SALT deductions interferes "with the States' sovereign authority to make their own choices about whether and how much to invest in their own residents, businesses, infrastructure, and more — authority that is guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and foundational principles of federalism." The plaintiffs also alleged that this action on the part of the federal government "deliberately seeks to compel certain States to reduce their public spending," representing an "unconstitutional assault on the States' sovereign choices." The plaintiffs asked that the court overturn this law.[66]

Ruling: On September 30, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the government's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Read the full text of the order here.

Technology, privacy, and cybersecurity

See also: Federal policy on technology, privacy, and cybersecurity, 2017-2020

Net neutrality

Action by federal government: On February 22, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published an order in the Federal Register repealing and replacing the 2015 Open Internet Order. The new rules, titled Restoring Internet Freedom, took effect on April 23, 2018.[67][68] Instituted during the Obama administration, the 2015 Open Internet Order, also referred to as net neutrality rules, considered internet service providers (ISPs) a public utility and they were regulated like gas, water, electric, and phone service companies. ISPs were prohibited from blocking or slowing web traffic or providing paid internet fast lanes. Under the 2018 rules, ISPs will not be regulated as a public utility. ISPs will have to disclose their practices, and the FCC and Federal Trade Commission will investigate any anti-competitive behavior.[69]

Lawsuit: On February 22, 2018, a group of 23 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking to block the FCC's new rules. The lawsuit alleges that the commission's order to repeal and replace the 2015 Open Internet Order violated the arbitrary-or-capricious test of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Communications Act of 1934, the United States Constitution, and agency rulemaking requirements.[70][71][67]

Ruling: On October 1, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit delivered an opinion upholding the FCC's 2018 net neutrality repeal but striking down the agency's preemption of state and local net neutrality regulations. The opinion said that such preemption coudl only occur if the FCC could prove a state practice undermined the 2018 order. The court also directed the agency to consider how the repeal would affect public safety, broadband subsidies, and the regulation of cable pole attachments.[72]

Commentary about multistate lawsuits

  • Former Democratic attorney general of Maine and Harvard Law School lecturer James Tierney called the uptick in attorneys general filing lawsuits along party lines concerning. He said, "The more AGs act like congressmen, the more they'll be treated like congressmen. It's endangering the very function of attorney general. ... My long-term concern is that the AGs become seen as one more lawyer, one more politician on the make, and that undercuts the credibility of the office itself."[4]
  • James L. Huffman, professor and dean emeritus of Lewis & Clark Law School, called for an end to multistate lawsuits in an opinion pieces written for The Hill. He said, "As for federalism, state attorneys general of both parties have a legitimate and important role — indeed, a responsibility — to defend the sovereign powers of their states and to challenge federal intrusions on those powers. But the surge of multistate lawsuits against the Trump administration, like those against the Obama administration, is almost entirely partisan. These lawsuits are brought not to defend the constitutional prerogatives of the states but to disrupt and block the policies of the federal government."[73]
  • Alan Greenblatt of Governing said that attorneys general use these lawsuits to shape national policy. He wrote, "Regardless of party or target, it’s clear AGs will continue to view litigation not only as a tool for enforcing the law, but also as one to shape national policy."[74]
  • Fred Barbash of The Washington Post wrote in August 2019 that multistate lawsuits were the result of a divided Congress and increased use of presidential orders. He said, "Presidents, faced with divided government and gridlocked Congresses, have resorted more to unilateral executive decisions and agency action to change policy. Both are more vulnerable to court challenges than acts of Congress and that encourages states to litigate."[75]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ U.S. News & World Report, "5 Multistate Lawsuits Against the U.S.," January 29, 2019
  2. ↑ Fox News, "Democratic AGs swarm Trump administration with lawsuits," February 6, 2018
  3. ↑ Daily Signal, "In 8 Years of Obama, GOP AGs Sued 46 Times. Democrats Already Sued Trump 35 Times." January 31, 2018
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 U.S. News, "State Attorneys General Lead the Charge Against President Donald," October 27, 2017
  5. ↑ United States Department of Commerce Announces Reinstatement of Citizenship Question to the 202 Decennial Census," March 26, 2018
  6. ↑ United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, "New York v. United States Department of Commerce: Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief," April 3, 2018
  7. ↑ United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, "State of New York v. United States Department of Commerce and New York Immigration Council v. United States Department of Commerce: Opinion and Order," July 26, 2018
  8. ↑ Route Fifty, "Federal Judge Rules Against Trump Administration's Citizenship Question on Census," January 15, 2019
  9. ↑ United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, "State of New York, et al. v. United States Department of Commerce, et al. and New York Immigration Coalition, et al. v. United States Department of Commerce, et al." January 15, 2019
  10. ↑ USA Today, "Supreme Court will rule on Trump administration's effort to add question on citizenship to 2020 Census," February 15, 2019
  11. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Department of Commerce v. New York," June 27, 2019
  12. ↑ NPR, "DeVos Rolls Back For-Profit College Regs, Harvard's President To Step Down," June 17, 2017
  13. ↑ Federal Register, "Final rule; notification of partial delay of effective dates," July 16, 2017
  14. ↑ U.S. Department of Education, "Secretary DeVos Announces Regulatory Reset to Protect Students, Taxpayers, Higher Ed Institutions," June 14, 2017
  15. ↑ NPR, "18 States Sue Betsy DeVos And Education Dept. Over Delay Of Borrower Defense Rule," July 6, 2017
  16. ↑ The New York Times, "Delayed Obama-Era Rule on Student Debt Relief Is to Take Effect," October 16, 2018
  17. ↑ Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA to Extend Deadline for 2015 Ozone NAAQS Area Designations," June 6, 2017
  18. ↑ Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA Continues to Work With States on 2015 Ozone Designations," August 2, 2017
  19. ↑ Associated Press, "15 states, including California, appeal EPA delay of stricter air-quality standards," August 1, 2017
  20. ↑ The Hill, "Court lets Dem states defend Obama ozone pollution rule," August 2, 2017
  21. ↑ State Litigation and AG Activity Database, "State Lawsuits Database," November 24, 2024
  22. ↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, "State of Washington v. United States Department of State: Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief," July 30, 2018
  23. ↑ The Baltimore Sun, "Judge blocks release of blueprints for 3D-printed guns; Maryland had sued to stop downloads," July 31, 2018
  24. ↑ Governing, "Judge Blocks Release of 3D-Printed Gun Blueprints," August 28, 2018
  25. ↑ JOLT digest, "Washington v. Department of State: First Amendment Claims Won’t Overcome Procedural Defects, Blocking Publication of 3D-printable Weapons File," November 26, 2019
  26. ↑ Court Listener, "Notice of Appeal to Circuit — Document #197," accessed January 17, 2020
  27. ↑ Court Listener, "Order of USCA — Document #204," accessed July 29, 2020
  28. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Signs Sweeping Tax Overhaul Into Law," December 22, 2017
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 The Wall Street Journal, "GOP Lawsuit Takes Aim at Affordable Care Act Again," February 27, 2018
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Reuters, "Twenty states sue federal government, seeking end to Obamacare," February 26, 2018
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Scribd, "Texas et al. v. United States of America et al.," December 14, 2018
  32. ↑ Politico, "Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional, endangering coverage for 20 million," December 14, 2018
  33. ↑ Texas Tribune, "Individual mandate is unconstitutional, federal appellate court rules in Texas-led Affordable Care Act lawsuit," December 18, 2019
  34. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "19-840 California v. Texas (06/17/2021)," accessed June 17, 2021
  35. ↑ U.S. Department of Labor, "29 CFR Part 2510, RIN 1210-AB85, Definition of 'Employer' under Section 3(5) of ERISA -- Association Health Plans," January 4, 2018
  36. ↑ The Hill, "States sue Trump administration over expansion of skimpy group insurance plans," July 26, 2018
  37. ↑ United States District Court for the District of Columbia, "State of New York v. United States Department of Labor: Complaint for Delcaratory and Injunctive Relief," July 26, 2018
  38. ↑ The New York Times, "In Blow to Trump, Judge Blocks Health Care Law ‘End Run,’" March 28, 2019
  39. ↑ Constitutional Accountability Center, "New York v. United States Department of Labor," accessed April 3, 2020
  40. ↑ The Seattle Times, "AG Ferguson: Washington, other states to sue Trump administration over separating immigrant families at border," June 21, 2018
  41. ↑ CNBC, "17 states sue Trump administration over family separations," June 26, 2018
  42. ↑ Governing, "17 States Sue Trump Over Family Separations at the Border," June 27, 2018
  43. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named thehillhawaii
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 Chicago Tribune, "Legal challenges to Trump's travel ban mount as Washington moves to block executive order," March 9, 2017
  45. ↑ Politico, "Last-ditch legal efforts to stop Trump travel ban heat up," March 13, 2017
  46. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named hawaiiblock
  47. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named troextend
  48. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named appealhi
  49. ↑ Politico, "Full bench of 4th Circuit to hear Trump travel ban case in May," April 10, 2017
  50. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Ninth Circuit hears oral argument on Trump travel ban," May 16, 2017
  51. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named 9thcircuitjune12op
  52. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named scotusjune
  53. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Order list - orders in pending cases, September 25, 2017
  54. ↑ The New York Times, "Trump Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss Travel Ban Cases," October 5, 2017
  55. ↑ Hogan Lovells US LLP, "Letter Brief Regarding Mootness," October 5, 2017
  56. ↑ 56.0 56.1 DHS.gov, "Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA)," September 5, 2017
  57. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  58. ↑ Attorney General of New York, "State of New York et al. v. Trump et al," September 6, 2015
  59. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, "In re Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security," December 27, 2017
  60. ↑ 60.0 60.1 United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, "Batalia Vidal et al. v. Trump" Amended Memorandum & Order & Preliminary Injunction
  61. ↑ The Los Angeles Times, "California politics updates: California to sue Trump administration for DACA decision," September 12, 2017
  62. ↑ California Office of the Attorney General, "California et al. v. Department of Homeland Security et al," September 11, 2017
  63. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named reviewability
  64. ↑ Politico, "Texas, six other states call for immediate halt to Dreamer program," May 2, 2018
  65. ↑ 65.0 65.1 65.2 USA Today, "Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton files 7-state lawsuit seeking to end DACA," May 1, 2018
  66. ↑ 66.0 66.1 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, "State of New York, et al. v. Mnuchin, et al.: Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief," July 17, 2018
  67. ↑ 67.0 67.1 TechCrunch, "The FCC’s order gutting net neutrality is now official — but the fight is just getting started," February 22, 2018
  68. ↑ Federal Register, "Restoring Internet Freedom," February 22, 2018
  69. ↑ ABC News, "What is net neutrality?" December 11, 2017
  70. ↑ Gizmodo, "23 State Attorneys General Sue the FCC to Preserve Net Neutrality," February 22, 2018
  71. ↑ TechCrunch, "Lawsuit filed by 22 state attorneys general seeks to block net neutrality repeal," January 16, 2018
  72. ↑ The Hill, "Appeals court upholds net neutrality repeal but rules FCC can't block state laws," accessed October 2, 2019
  73. ↑ The Hill, "Enough already with the partisan multistate lawsuits," May 21, 2019
  74. ↑ Governing, "The Story Behind the Prominent Rise of State AGs," accessed January 16, 2020
  75. ↑ The Washington Post, "Litigation against executive branch by coalitions of states grows in response to unilateral actions by president and gridlocked Congress," August 24, 2019
v • e
President Donald Trump's policies (first term)
OverviewsUS-WhiteHouse-Logo.svg
Domestic policy
Economic affairs and regulations
Foreign affairs and national security
Trump's second term overviews
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Multistate_lawsuits_against_the_federal_government_during_the_Trump_administration,_2017-2021&oldid=10186552"