State opposition to the Trump administration, 2017

Opposition to the Trump administration (2017)
Main page
• Opposition to the Trump administration
Specific opposition
• Donor group opposition • Congressional opposition • DNC opposition • Street-level opposition • State opposition • Local opposition

---

Ballotpedia's scope changes periodically, and this article type is no longer actively created or maintained. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.

---

Days after the 2016 election, politicians, organizations, and others began to strategize about opposing Republican President Donald Trump's policies and administration. This page chronicles tactics that states and state executives developed to oppose Trump's policy agenda. The opposition strategies outlined below are tactics that have been reported by notable, reliable sources. This page was last updated in June 2017.

State opposition

Electoral College

• Electors in Colorado brought a suit to overturn a state law that bound them to vote for the presidential candidate that won the state, Hillary Clinton (D). The decision would have challenged the same laws in 28 other states. On December 13, 2016, Judge Elizabeth Starrs ruled that the law would not be overturned. Similar suits were filed in California and the state of Washington.
• On December 5, 2016, The New York Times published an opinion piece from Texas elector Christopher Suprun, who, despite being pledged to Trump, stated that he would not vote for Trump. Suprun wrote, "I believe electors should unify behind a Republican alternative, an honorable and qualified man or woman such as Gov. John Kasich of Ohio."
• On November 30, 2016, Politico reported on a movement to challenge the Electoral College and challenge the binding of members of the college. One of the groups spearheading the effort was the Hamilton Electors, which was established by two members of the college. The group was seeking to persuade 37 Republican electors not to cast their vote for Trump.
• In late November 2016, according to Politico, some Washington and Colorado Democratic Electoral College members attempted to block Trump's election or to become "faithless" voters—unbound by their state's election results—so as to "contribute to a sense of disarray and voter disenfranchisement" among voters.

State governments

California

• On December 7, 2016, the California State Legislature announced a bill that, according to the Sacramento Bee, would "prohibit state and local law enforcement, including school police and security departments, from using their resources for immigration enforcement." Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León said that the bill was a response to Trump's proposed immigration policies. He said, "To the millions of undocumented residents pursuing and contributing to the California dream, the state of California will be your wall of justice should the incoming administration adopt an inhumane and overreaching mass-deportation policy. We will not stand by and let the federal government use our state and local agencies to separate mothers from their children."
• Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said California would use state and federal environmental protection laws to prevent Trump from building a border wall with Mexico in California. On January 9, 2017, Newsom told San Francisco Magazine, "There’s something called CEQA [the California Environmental Quality Act] in California—NEPA at the federal level [the National Environmental Policy Act]. ... There’s indigenous lands and autonomies relating to governance on those lands. There are all kinds of obstructions as it relates to just getting zoning approval and getting building permits. All those things could be made very, very challenging for the administration."
• On June 1, 2017, the California State Legislature passed a bill that would prohibit state resources being used to enforce federal marijuana laws that conflict with the state's existing marijuana laws. Californians voted to legalize recreational marijuana in November 2016, and the legislation was proposed "to shield Californians complying with state cannabis regulations like those legally operating a shop selling pot from being detained, reported or arrested by state or local police," according to The Sacramento Bee.
• On June 6, 2017, after Trump ended U.S. involvement in the Paris Climate Agreement, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed an agreement to work with China on lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The nonbinding agreement was intended to establish cooperation between China and the state on expanding renewable energy and low carbon development. Brown said, "California is the leading economic state in America and we are also the pioneering state on clean technology, cap and trade, electric vehicles and batteries, but we can’t do it alone. ... We need a very close partnership with China, with your businesses, with your provinces, with your universities."

Delaware

• On June 8, 2017, Delaware Governor John Carney (D) signed into law a bill that guaranteed legalized abortion in the state. According to The Associated Press, "The legislation approved Tuesday removes those restrictions and allows abortion without restriction before a fetus reaches viability. It defines viability as the point in a pregnancy when, in a doctor's 'good faith medical judgment,' there is a reasonable likelihood that the fetus can survive outside the uterus without 'extraordinary medical measures.'" State Sen. Bryan Townsend (D), the bill's author, told The Hill, "There is a real possibility that the federal framework around this is changed in coming years. ... With the possibility that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade or other case law, we thought it was really important."

Hawaii

• On June 7, 2017, Hawaii Governor David Ige (D) signed two bills into law concerning climate change. The bills expanded strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and established a Carbon Farming Task Force for sustainable agricultural practices. According to The Washington Post, the bills were introduced after Trump's inauguration and were signed after Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Maryland

• On February 15, 2017, the Maryland State Legislature passed a law that gave expanded authority to the state's attorney general to sue the federal government without the approval of the governor. According to The Baltimore Sun, the legislature granted the attorney general the authority to sue based on federal government "action or inaction that the attorney general deems an infringement of Marylanders' rights to health care, civil liberties, economic security, environment, immigration or international travel."

New York

• On February 6, 2017, the New York State Assembly passed a bill to make New York a sanctuary state, where state and local law enforcement would not assist federal immigration officers in deportations. Assemblyman Francisco Moya said in statement, "It is our job to respond to his call to build border walls with a wall of our own, one that protects diversity and acceptance that have always been at the core of our state. ... Not only is it a moral imperative to shelter every race or religion from bigotry, it is our obligation to protect the function of our local law enforcement and agencies." On February 7, New York Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan said it would not be brought for a vote in the state Senate.

Washington

• Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed an executive order on February 23, 2017, that restricted the ability of state workers and organizations to assist in enforcing federal immigration laws. According to the Seattle Times, Inslee's order sought "to prevent the use of state resources to aid widespread deportations or the creation of a national Muslim registry." It did not, however, order any interference with existing federal laws or with federal criminal arrest warrants.

State attorneys general

California

• On August 14, 2017, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra sued the Justice Department over a change in rules regarding federal funding for sanctuary jurisdictions. The Justice Department had previously said that certain federal grants for law enforcement would not be available to jurisdictions unless they agreed to conditions related to holding for 48 hours those suspected of residing in the country without legal permission. The suit read, in part, "The Administration has threatened to withhold congressionally appropriated federal funds unless the State and local jurisdictions acquiesce to the President’s immigration enforcement demands. This is unconstitutional and should be halted." At a press conference announcing the lawsuit, Becerra said, "We abide by federal law. We respect the Constitution. The federal government should do the same. ... The federal government is using the threat of its power, of its size, to bully local jurisdictions to do what they want."
• California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for its rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program on September 11, 2017, claiming that the Obama-era executive action was legal and to rescind it was to violate due process rights for those who sought protections under the program. California was joined in the suit by the attorneys general of Maine, Minnesota, and Maryland.
• On September 20, 2017, Becerra sued the Trump administration to block the administration's plan to build a wall on the border between the U.S. and Mexico in the state. The suit claimed that the administration violated the Tenth Amendment when it declared that the wall is an emergency justifying waiving certain environmental and contracting procedures. Becerra said, "They're violating the Tenth Amendment and infringing on a lot of state laws, not just federal laws, that affect our state. At the same time, they're trying to do something that only Congress can do."

Connecticut

• On January 23, 2017, a group of 17 state attorneys general, led by Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen (D), filed a motion to intervene in an appeal of PHH Corporation, et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That case appealed the ruling of a lower court that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency created by the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, was unconstitutional. The motion to intervene by the state attorneys general cited Trump's disapproval of Dodd-Frank and cited reports that Trump would abandon the appeal, which began under the administration of Barack Obama (D). The attorneys general argued that "the court's ruling [that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured], if permitted to stand, would undermine the power of state attorneys general to effectively protect consumers against abuse in the consumer finance industry, and significantly lessen the ability of the CFPB to withstand political pressure and act effectively and independently of the President."

District of Columbia and Maryland

• On June 12, 2017, Attorney General for the District of Columbia Karl Racine (D) filed a lawsuit claiming that Trump violated the Constitution's emoluments clause by retaining ownership in the Trump Organization. Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (D) joined Racine in the suit. The two indicated that they intended "to demand through the discovery process copies of Trump’s personal tax returns to gauge the extent of his foreign business dealings."

Hawaii

• On March 7, 2017, Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin (D) filed a lawsuit against Trump's second executive order banning travel from majority-Muslim countries. The lawsuit claimed, "The new executive order is resulting in the establishment of religion in the state of Hawaii contrary to its state constitution; it is inflicting immediate damage to Hawaii's economy, educational institutions, and tourism industry; and it is subjecting a portion of the state's citizens to second-class treatment and discrimination, while denying all Hawaii residents the benefits of an inclusive and pluralistic society," attorneys for the state argued in court filings."

Judge Derrick Kahala Watson ruled in favor of the state of Hawaii and issued a temporary restraining order on March 15, 2017. In issuing the restraining order, Watson commented on the Justice Department's defense that the order did not target Islam because those affected by the ban only constituted nine percent of the world's Muslims. Watson wrote, "The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise."

Massachusetts

• Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) joined a lawsuit first filed by the ACLU arguing that Trump's executive order halting immigration and some refugee settlement was unconstitutional. In a statement from January 31, 2017, Healey's office explained the suit's rationale, saying, "The lawsuit claims that the Executive Order violates federal law and calls on it to be declared unconstitutional – for taking the rights away from lawful residents as well as other visa holders without due process. According to the AG’s Office, the order discriminates against people on the basis of their country of origin and religion, without sufficient justification, and therefore violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment."
• On July 6, 2017, Healey and 18 other state attorneys general sued Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who had delayed the implementation of a rules change concerning federal student debt for those defrauded by colleges. The Washington Post reported in July 2017, "The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court on Thursday, accuses the Education Department of violating federal law by halting updates to a regulation known as the borrower defense to repayment. The rule, which dates to the 1990s, wipes away federal loans for students whose colleges used illegal or deceptive tactics to get them to borrow money to attend. The Obama administration revised it last year to simplify the claims process and shift more of the cost of discharging loans onto schools."

New York

• New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) told Politico on January 8, 2017, that he considered his office to be the first line of defense against the Trump administration. The article reported that Schneiderman was "watching the activities of Trump’s federal agencies closely, prepared to launch suits or serve as a regulator itself at signs of relaxed regulation enforcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Labor."
• On January 31, 2017, Schneiderman joined a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of two Iraqi refugees detained in a New York City airport after Trump signed an executive order that halted immigration and some refugee settlement. Schneiderman said, "I'm proud to partner with these organizations to fight to permanently strike down this dangerous and discriminatory order. I will continue to do everything in my power to not just fight this executive order, but to protect the families caught in the chaos sown by President Trump's hasty and irresponsible implementation – including pressing DHS and CBP to provide a full list of those still detained and allow them access to legal service providers."
• On September 6, 2017, Schneiderman led a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security claiming that the department's decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was illegal. 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 and prevent DACA from being rescinded. Schneiderman was joined by the attorneys general in Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia.

Virginia

• On January 31, 2017, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) joined Aziz v. Trump, a lawsuit aimed at Trump's executive order that halted immigration and some refugee settlement. Herring said, "The Commonwealth has substantial interests justifying its intervention, and make no mistake, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and our people, are already being harmed by this Executive Order. As we speak, there are students at our colleges and universities who are unable to return to Virginia. We have professors, researchers, and employees at our colleges and universities and Virginia businesses who either cannot enter the country, or who will be barred from returning should they leave."

Washington

• On January 30, 2017, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) announced that he was suing the Trump administration, claiming that Trump's executive order that halted immigration and some refugee settlement was unconstitutional. In a statement announcing the lawsuit, Ferguson said, "If successful it would have the effect of invalidating the president's unlawful action nationwide. ... At the end of the day, either you're abiding by the Constitution or you are not. And in our view, the president is not adhering to the Constitution when it comes to this executive action."

The lawsuit, which was joined by Minnesota's attorney general, listed nine causes of action, three of which challenged the order’s constitutionality. These three challenges were:

• That the executive order “was motivated by animus and a desire to harm a particular group” and therefore violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.
• “Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order, together with statements made by Defendants concerning their intent and application, are intended to disfavor Islam and favor Christianity.” This portion of the lawsuit claims the executive order violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.
• That the order denies the Fifth Amendment right to due process, which is “applicable to arriving and present non-citizens.”

On February 3, 2017, Judge James Robart of the U.S. District Court of Western Washington issued a temporary restraining order on a nationwide basis, meaning that many of the key provisions of the executive order were suspended until the full case could be heard. Democratic attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia filed an amicus curiae brief on February 6, 2017, supporting the lawsuit.

The Justice Department appealed the decision, and on February 9, 2017, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the block.

• On March 9, 2017, days after Trump issued a revised version of the executive order that omitted Iraq and included more information about who the travel ban would affect, Ferguson asked a judge to apply the temporary restraining order from the previous executive order to the new one. In an interview with NPR, Ferguson said that the state's challenge to the new order was based on the same argument that Trump's order was religious discrimination against Muslims. Ferguson added, "Is it a narrower group of people who are impacted by the travel ban, the revised one? You bet," Ferguson told NPR. "But just because it's a smaller number of individuals who are impacted, that doesn't mean you can solve a constitutional problem of the magnitude that the revised ban still has."

See also

• Opposition to the Trump administration