Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

State responses to federal mandates

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Federalism Banner-Blue.png
Federalism
Federalism Icon 200x200.png
•Key terms
• Court cases
•Major arguments
• State responses to federal mandates
• Federalism by the numbers
• Index of articles about federalism
See also: Federalism, Dual federalism, Unfunded mandate, Federalism by the numbers: Federal mandates, Judicial activism

What are state responses to federal mandates?
State responses to federal mandates refer to how U.S. states react to binding requirements imposed by the federal government — such as laws, regulations, or conditions tied to funding — including funding conditions and unfunded mandates.[1] While states often comply — especially when federal funding is at stake — they may also delay implementation, modify policies to fit state priorities, challenge mandates in court, or refuse to comply altogether.

Why does it matter?
State challenges to federal mandates play a key role in shaping the balance of power between state and federal governments. Federal mandates influence state policies in areas such as healthcare, public assistance, highway infrastructure, and housing, often through conditions attached to funding. In fiscal year 2023, the federal government provided nearly $1.1 trillion to state and local governments through grants, accounting for about 20% of total state revenues. How states respond to these mandates affects public services, budget priorities, and the broader federal-state relationship, raising deeper questions about constitutional authority, fiscal responsibility, and the tension between national standards and state flexibility.[2]

Where is the fight?
Fights over mandates frequently occur in federal courts, where states challenge the legality or scope of federal actions. State legislatures may pass laws resisting or adapting to federal rules, and governors may use executive orders to shape compliance. While all 50 states are affected by federal mandates, their responses vary depending on political leadership and how closely state priorities align — or conflict — with those of the presidential administration.

What are the trends?
The following chart compares the total number of multistate lawsuits filed against each presidential administration between 1981 and 2025, according to the State Litigation and AG Activity Database and the Civil Rights Clearinghouse.

What is the scope of this page?
This page highlights two major waves of recent litigation:

  • State lawsuits against the Biden administration
    Between 2021 and early 2025, Republican attorneys general filed dozens of lawsuits challenging Biden-era mandates. Many of these cases remain active, though the Trump administration is unlikely to continue defending them in court.
    Read More
  • State lawsuits against the second Trump administration
    Since January 2025, Democratic attorneys general have filed a series of lawsuits challenging President Trump's executive actions across areas like education, immigration, and grant funding.
    Read More


This page also organizes federal mandate disputes by Ballotpedia’s main policy coverage areas, including education, ESG, and the administrative state.


  • State responses related to ESG
    Read more
  • State responses related to the administrative state
    Read more
  • State responses related to unemployment insurance
    Coming soon
    Read more
  • State responses related to work requirements
    Coming soon
    Read more
  • State responses related to education
    Coming soon
    Read more


State lawsuits against the second Trump administration

As of September 3, 2025, there were 32 multistate lawsuits filed against the second Trump administration. The table below lists these lawsuits involving two or more state plaintiffs. It includes the date the lawsuit was filed, the number of states involved, the docket or citation number, the current status of the case, the topical category, and the district court. This information was originally compiled by the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.[3]

Multistate lawsuits against the second Trump administration
Case Date filed Number of states Docket or citation Status Category District Court
Massachusetts v. Trump[4] August 1, 2025 16 1:25-cv-12162 Pending Healthcare Massachusetts
California v. Department of Agriculture[5] July 28, 2025 20 3:25-cv-06310 Pending Public assistance Northern California
New York v. Department of Justice[6] July 21, 2025 20 1:25-cv-00345 Case dismissed on Aug 25, 2025, after funds restored. Immigration/public assistance Rhode Island
Washington v. Federal Emergency Management Agency[7] July 16, 2025 20 1:25-cv-12006 A preliminary injunction granted August 5, 2025 Infrastructure Massachusetts
California v. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services[8] July 17, 2025 21 1:25-cv-12019 Case dismissed without prejudice on Aug. 25, 2025, pending funds release Healthcare Massachusetts
California v. McMahon[9] July 14, 2025 24 1:25-cv-00329 Case dismissed without prejudice, pending funds release Education Rhode Island
New Jersey v. U.S. Office of Management and Budget[10] June 24, 2025 21 1:25-cv-11816 Pending Federal funding Massachusetts
New York v. National Science Foundation[11] May 28, 2025 20 1:25-cv-05271 Preliminary injunction denied Aug 1, 2025; case voluntarily dismissed Aug 25, 2025 Federal funding Southern New York
Illinois v. FEMA[12] May 13, 2025 20 1:25-cv-00206 Pending Immigration Rhode Island
California v. Department of Transportation[13] May 13, 2025 20 1:25-cv-00208 A preliminary injunction granted June 19, 2025 Immigration Rhode Island
Washington v. Trump[14] May 9, 2025 15 2:25-cv-00869 Pending Environment Western Washington
Washington v. Department of Transportation[15] May 7, 2025 16 2:25-cv-00848 A preliminary injunction granted in part June 24, 2025 Environment Western Washington
New York v. Kennedy[16] May 5, 2025 20 1:25-cv-00196 A preliminary injunction granted July 1, 2025. Under appeal; SCOTUS granted stay Aug 13, 2025 pending First Circuit review Education Rhode Island
New York v. Trump[17] May 5, 2025 17 1:25-cv-11221 Pending Environment Massachusetts
New York v. U.S. Department of Education[18] April 25, 2025 19 1:25-cv-11116 Pending Education Massachusetts
Oregon v. Trump[19] April 23, 2025 12 1:25-cv-00077 A summary judgment for plaintiffs May 28, 2025; appeal pending[20] Trade U.S. Court of International Trade
New York v. U.S. Department of Education[21] April 10, 2025 16 1:25-cv-02990 A preliminary injunction granted May 6, 2025 Education New York
Rhode Island v. Trump[22] April 5, 2025 21 1:25-cv-00128 A preliminary injunction granted May 6, 2025 Executive authority Rhode Island
Massachusetts v. Kennedy, Jr.[23] April 4, 2025 16 1:25-cv-10814 A preliminary injunction granted May 16, 2025 Healthcare Massachusetts
Washington v. Trump[24] April 4, 2025 2 2:25-cv-00602 Pending Voting Western Washington
California v. Trump[25] April 3, 2025 19 1:25-cv-10810 A preliminary injunction granted June 13, 2025 Voting Massachusetts
Colorado v. HHS[26] April 1, 2025 21 1:25-cv-00121 A preliminary injunction granted May 16, 2025 Healthcare Rhode Island
New York v. McMahon[27] March 13, 2025 20 1:25-cv-10601 A preliminary injunction granted May 22, 2025; stay denied June 4, 2025 Education Massachusetts
California v. U.S. Department of Education[28] March 6, 2025 8 1:25-cv-10548 A preliminary injunction withdrawn; temporary restraining order appealed and affirmed March 21, 2025 Education Massachusetts
Maryland v. United States Department of Agriculture[29] March 6, 2025 19 1:25-cv-00748 A preliminary injunction granted; appealed and affirmed Labor Maryland
New Mexico v. Musk[30] February 13, 2025 14 1:25-cv-00429 A temporary restraining order denied Executive authority District of Columbia
Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health February 10, 2025 22 1:25-cv-10338 A preliminary injunction issued February 10, 2025 Healthcare Massachusetts
Washington v. Department of Justice[31] February 7, 2025 4 2:25-cv-00244 A preliminary injunction granted February 28, 2025 Healthcare Western Washington
New York v. Trump[32] February 7, 2025 19 1:25-cv-01144 A preliminary injunction granted February 21, 2025 Executive authority Southern New York
New York v. Trump[33] January 28, 2025 23 1:25-cv-00039 A preliminary injunction granted March 6, 2025 Funding Rhode Island
New Jersey v. Trump[34] January 21, 2025 18 1:25-cv-10139 A preliminary injunction granted; in Trump v. CASA, Inc., SCOTUS partially stayed relief June 27, 2025 Immigration Massachusetts
Washington v. Trump[35] January 21, 2025 4 2:25-cv-00127 A preliminary injunction granted; in Trump v. CASA, Inc., SCOTUS partially stayed relief June 27, 2025 Immigration Western Washington

State lawsuits against the Biden administration

This section highlights a selection of multistate lawsuits filed against the Biden administration in 2024. Please note that the status of these cases may not be the most current.

Federal judge blocks CMS rule expanding health coverage to DACA recipients (2024)

  • Status: Federal Judge Daniel Traynor of the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction and stay on December 9, 2024, ruling that CMS acted contrary to law and that the states are likely to face irreparable harm. The ruling temporarily halts the enforcement or implementation of the regulation while the case is being litigated.[38]
  • State(s): Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia

18 States Take Legal Action Against SEC Over Digital Asset Regulation (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued employees of Coinbase, a cryptocurrency exchange platform, for securities fraud in July 2022. In 2023, the SEC filed lawsuits against Coinbase and Binance, accusing them of operating as unregistered securities exchanges and brokers. The SEC has taken numerous other enforcement actions against various entities and individuals in the digital asset industry.[39]
  • State response: Eighteen Republican attorneys general sued the SEC on Nov. 14, 2024, arguing that the agency’s regulatory actions exceed its authority and violate principles of federalism and separation of powers. The lawsuit claims that states have the constitutional right to regulate digital assets and that the SEC’s broad, unilateral actions, without congressional authorization, undermine state sovereignty and hinder innovation. The attorneys general assert that the SEC’s attempt to apply federal securities laws to digital assets harms consumers by displacing state laws better suited to provide consumer protection. The plaintiffs are seeking a ruling to halt the SEC’s regulatory enforcement.[40]
  • Status: Lawsuit filed on November 14, 2024.
  • State(s): Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia

Ninth Circuit revives lawsuit challenging Biden's $15 minimum wage mandate for federal contractors (2024)

  • Federal mandate: Executive Order 14026, signed by President Joe Biden (D) in April 2021, mandates a $15 per hour minimum wage for federal contractors, including universities and other state entities contracting with the federal government. The corresponding final rule, issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in November 2021, sets the specific regulations for implementing the wage increase, including annual adjustments based on inflation.[41][42]
  • State response: Then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) filed suit on February 8, 2022, along with Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, and South Carolina in the United States District Court of Arizona, challenging Biden's Executive Order and its implementing rule. The states argued that the defendants were "lacking statutory authority and violating separation-of-powers and federalism principles."[43]
  • Status: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit challenging Executive Order 14026 on November 5, 2024. Two of the three judges ruled that the minimum wage mandate was arbitrary and capricious and exceeded the president's authority. The case is sent back to the district court for further proceedings.[44]
  • State(s): Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, and South Carolina

Federal judge temporarily halts Biden rule on natural gas flaring (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) issued the "Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation" rule on April 10, 2024, aiming to reduce natural gas waste from venting and flaring during oil and gas production on federal and tribal lands.[45]
  • State response: North Dakota, along with three other states, sued the DOI, arguing that the final rule] unjustly expands federal regulation over state and private oil and gas production. The states contended that this version exceeds the Bureau of Land Management's authority, violates the Clean Air Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and is arbitrary and capricious.[46]
  • Status: U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor granted a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the rule in five states, stating, “At this preliminary stage, the plaintiffs have shown they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the 2024 Rule is arbitrary and capricious.”[47]
  • State(s): North Dakota, Montana, Texas, and Wyoming; later joined by Utah

Texas sues Health and Human Services over privacy rule for abortion (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule on April 26, 2024, that requires healthcare providers to enforce stricter privacy protections for reproductive health information. This means sensitive details about reproductive health services, such as abortion, must be kept confidential and can only be shared with explicit consent from the individual.[48]
  • State response: Texas sued HHS on September 4, 2024, in the Northern District of Texas, arguing the rule is arbitrary and capricious, overstepping federal authority and undermining state enforcement of criminal laws.[49]
  • Status: Lawsuit filed on September 4, 2024
  • State(s): Texas

Seven states sue the Biden administration over third student debt relief plan (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) issued a proposed rule in April 2024 to waive some student loan debts, citing power under the Higher Education Act of 1965.[50]
  • Status: Lawsuit filed on September 3, 2024.
  • State(s): Missouri, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, North Dakota, and Ohio

Judge denies Illinois' request to end the federal oversight of disability services (2024)

  • Federal mandate: Ligas v. Hamos was a court-approved agreement known as a consent decree issued by the U.S. District Court of Northern Illinois on June 15, 2011, requiring Illinois to reform its disability services system. The consent decree enforces strict court oversight and monitoring to ensure compliance with the mandated improvements in community-based care for individuals with developmental disabilities.[52]
  • State response: Illinois filed a motion to vacate the consent decree in Ligas v. Eagleson, a subsequent case, in federal court on December 8, 2023, claiming it had complied with the required reforms.[53]
  • Status: Judge Sharon Coleman denied Illinois' motion to vacate the consent decree on August 30, 2024. While acknowledging significant progress, Coleman determined the state needs to "expeditiously" place individuals with developmental disabilities in community−based services.[54]
  • State(s): Illinois

Federal court blocks Biden's second student debt plan (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The Biden administration (D) and the Department of Education launched a new income-driven student loan repayment plan, known as the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan in August 2023.[55]
  • State response: 11 states filed a joint lawsuit on March 28, 2024, against the U.S. Department of Education, with seven more states filing a separate lawsuit on April 9, 2024. The states alleged the administration overstepped its executive authority by creating the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan in 2022. The Education Department declined to comment on the lawsuit but noted that Congress gave the department the authority to define the terms of income-driven repayment plans in 1993.[56][57]
  • Status: The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed parts of the SAVE plan on July 1, 2024, but allowed the parts of the SAVE plan already in effect to continue.[58] The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency stay on July 18, 2024, blocking all of the SAVE plan — including lower monthly payments for about 8 million borrowers — in an unsigned, single-sentence opinion.[59]
  • State(s): First Lawsuit: Kansas, Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. Second Lawsuit: Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma.

Oklahoma attorney general sues Biden administration for withholding funds due to abortion restrictions; lawsuit still pending (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) withheld a $4.5 million Title X Family Planning grant after Oklahoma refused to provide abortion referrals, as required by HHS rules issued under the Biden administration to implement Title X of the Public Health Service Act.[60]
  • State(s): Oklahoma

Alaska sues Department of Interior over the cancellation of oil and gas leases (2024)

  • Federal mandate: On the first day of his presidency—January 20, 2021—President Joe Biden (D) issued an executive order to place a temporary moratorium on the federal oil and gas leasing program in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and review the program for environmental impacts.[63]
  • State response: Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor (R) sued the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) on July 2, 2024, over the cancellation of oil and gas leases on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The state did not challenge the legality of the lease cancellation, instead seeking "to compel the United States to face the logical and legal consequences of its policy decision.”[64]
  • Status: Lawsuit filed on July 2, 2024
  • State(s): Alaska

17 states sue Biden administration over abortion leave; Louisiana and Mississippi case still pending (2024)

  • State(s): First lawsuit: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia. Second lawsuit: Louisiana and Mississippi

Supreme Court refuses to lift injunction blocking Idaho's abortion ban, upholding federal law (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance in 2022 arguing that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA) requires hospitals to stabilize patients with emergency medical conditions, including abortions if doctors think it's necessary. The Biden administration sued Idaho in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho in August 2022, alleging the state's abortion restriction–which banned all abortions–conflicted with the federal law. United States District Judge Lynn Winmill granted a preliminary injunction on August 24, 2024, blocking Idaho's abortion law as it conflicted with EMTALA.[70][71][72]
  • State response: Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R) and other state officials asked the Supreme Court of the United States on April 24, 2024, to block the preliminary injunction that prohibited the state from enforcing its abortion law while the case moved through the appeals process. Labrador argued for "the historic primacy of state regulation of matters of health and safety” and that the EMTALA does not constitute “clear congressional authorization” to take control of emergency room medicine from states.[73]
  • Status: The Supreme Court of the United States dismissed the issue on procedural grounds in an unsigned opinion on June 27, 2024, leaving in place the district court's preliminary injunction that blocks Idaho from enforcing its abortion ban.[74]
  • State(s): Idaho

Republican-led states sue the Biden Administration over fuel efficiency standards (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued new federal mandates on June 24, 2024, requiring stricter fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars and light trucks starting in 2027 and for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans starting in 2030. These rules aim to reduce emissions and promote cleaner vehicle technologies under the Biden administration’s climate goals.[75]
  • State response: West Virginia and 25 other states sued the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on June 26, 2024, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit over a final rule to increase the federal fuel economy. The Republican states argue that the rule, which requires gas-powered vehicles to increase fuel efficiency by 2% for passenger vehicles from 2027-2031, effectively forces auto manufacturers to produce more electric vehicles.[76]
  • Status: Lawsuit filed on June 26, 2024
  • State(s): West Virginia, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming

Utah and Wyoming sue Bureau of Land Management over public land rule (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) issued a final rule on May 9, 2024, to prioritize land conservation alongside traditional uses like energy development and grazing. The rule introduces conservation leases to protect ecosystems and maintain biodiversity, requiring that public lands be managed with a focus on landscape health and climate resilience.[77]
  • State response: Utah and Wyoming sued the BLM and the DOI on June 18, 2024, in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The suit states that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) “requires agencies contemplating a major action to carefully consider possible environmental consequences before moving forward with that action.”[78]
  • Status: Lawsuit filed on June 18, 2024
  • State(s): Utah and Wyoming

Tennessee Attorney General sues Biden administration over withheld funds due to abortion restrictions; Preliminary injunction denied (2024)

  • State(s): Tennessee


Lawsuits by topic against the Biden administration

Abortion

See also: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to abortion, such as federal rules requiring pharmacies to dispense abortifacient drugs or requiring hospitals to perform abortions in certain circumstances.

  • Seventeen states sue Biden administration over employee leave for elective abortions (2024): Seventeen states that outlawed abortion as of April 2024 sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on April 25, 2024, for including employee leave for an elective abortion as a benefit of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) of 2021. EEOC issued the regulation in an April 19, 2024, final rule. The proposed rule received over 54,000 comments opposing the inclusion of abortion from the definition of pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions, and 40,000 comments in support. The rule took effect on June 18, 2024.[82][83] United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. dismissed the lawsuit on June 14, 2024, for lacking standing.[84]
  • Idaho asks U.S. Supreme Court to allow enforcement of state abortion law during appeal (2023): Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R) and other state officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block an appeals court injunction that prohibited the state from enforcing its abortion law while the case moves through the appeals process. Idaho state law prohibits abortions at all stages of pregnancy except in cases of rape and incest or instances where an abortion could save the life of the mother. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance in 2022 arguing that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 requires hospitals to stabilize, according to the department's definition, patients with emergency medical conditions, including through abortions if doctors think it's necessary. The Biden administration sued Idaho in August 2022, alleging the state's abortion restrictions conflicted with the 1986 federal law.[85]
  • Oklahoma attorney general sues Biden administration for withholding funds due to abortion restrictions (2023): Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond (R) filed a lawsuit in a U.S. district court on November 17, 2023, against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for withholding about $4.5 million in federal funds after the state refused to provide abortion referrals, as required by HHS rules issued under the Biden administration to implement Title X of the Public Health Service Act. The lawsuit said, “Title X in no way requires abortion referrals for a State’s continued participation."[86]
  • Texas sues Biden administration over guidance to pharmacies on providing abortion-inducing drugs (2023): Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) on February 7, 2023, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas challenging July 2022 guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that, according to Paxton, violated state sovereignty by seeking "to require pharmacies that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to stock and dispense abortifacients for elective abortion purposes."[90][91][92]
  • Texas sues Biden administration over guidance requiring abortions in medical emergencies (2022): Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) sued the Biden administration on July 14, 2022, after U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra released guidance on July 11 requiring doctors to provide abortions in medical emergencies when "abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve [the emergency] condition."[93][94][95] Paxton alleged the guidance was too broad and that the law the rule was based on (the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) did not apply to abortion treatments. The HHS guidance came after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on June 24, overturning Roe v. Wade (1973) and ruling there was no constitutional right to abortion. Dobbs returned most abortion policy decisions to the states.[93][94] For more information on Dobbs and its effect on abortion policy, click here.
  • Republican-led states sue Department of Agriculture over non-discrimination school meal guidance (2022): Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery (R), joined by 21 Republican attorneys general, filed a lawsuit on July 26, 2022, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee that aimed to overturn guidance on nondiscrimination policies from the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service. The guidance expanded Title IX to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The directive also compelled state and local agencies receiving federal funds from the Food and Nutrition Service, including the national school lunch program, to align with nondiscrimination policies. Twenty-two Republican-led states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia) joined in the lawsuit. The states argued in part that the guidance interfered with the states’ right to enact legislation.[96][97]
  • Republican lawmakers oppose plan for universal prekindergarten (2021): Republican lawmakers in seven states (Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, Minnesota, Texas, and Arizona) told The Washington Post that they opposed the funding structure and education standards in the Biden administration’s November 2021 proposal to implement universal prekindergarten. The proposal, part of the Build Back Better Act, proposed providing federal funding to assist states in implementing free prekindergarten education for three- and four-year-olds. The lawmakers opposing the program argued in part that the federal government did not have the authority to implement uniform education standards.[98]

Environmental regulation

This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to the environment, such as federal rules for states to reduce greenhouse gases or restrictions on natural resource extraction.

  • Alaska sues Department of Interior over the cancellation of oil and gas leases (2024): Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor (R) sued the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) on July 2, 2024, over the cancellation of oil and gas leases on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The state argued that the lease cancellations will cost the state billions in lost revenue and is seeking compensation from the federal government for the lost revenue. [99]
  • Republican-led states sue the Biden Administration over fuel efficiency standards (2024): West Virginia and 25 other states sued the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on June 26, 2024, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit over a final rule to increase the federal fuel economy. The Republican states argue that the rule, which requires gas-powered vehicles to increase fuel efficiency by 2% for 2027-2031 for passenger vehicles, effectively forces auto manufacturers to produce more electric vehicles.[100]
  • Three states sue the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management over oil rig decommission rule (2024): Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi sued the Bureau of Ocean Management (BOEM) on June 17, 2024, over a rule that would require the offshore oil and gas industry to guarantee $7 billion in financial assurances to cover costs of dismantling old offshore infrastructure. The states argued that the rule imposes undue financial burdens that would force offshore oil companies out of business. The BOEM declined to comment on the lawsuit.[102]
  • Seven attorneys general sues the EPA over water rule (2024): Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R) and six other states sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 28, 2024, in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota over a rule requiring states to protect what the rule refers to as "tribal reserved rights” when determining water usage and quality. Labrador issued a statement describing the rule as "unconstitutional overreach into the management of state resources and relationships."[103][104]
  • States sue Environmental Protection Agency over power plant rule (2024): Attorneys general from West Virginia and 24 other states sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 9, 2024, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit over an emissions rule requiring fossil-fueled power plants to capture and store emissions. Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming argued that the final rule is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.”[105][106]
  • Twenty-five Republican attorneys general file lawsuit against emissions rule (2024): Twenty-five Republican attorneys general filed a lawsuit on April 18, 2024, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2024 rule establishing emissions standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles. The attorneys general motioned for the court to vacate the rule, arguing that the rule exceeded the EPA’s statutory authority. The lawsuit was filed by attorneys general from the following states: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.[111]
  • Utah lawmakers require discussion of federal air quality regulations (2024): Utah Governor Spencer Cox (R) on March 13, 2024, signed a bill into law requiring the Utah Division of Air Quality to regularly discuss emissions-related regulations with the state’s Federalism Commission. The bill also includes requirements to discuss regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal rules affecting industries. The Utah Department of Environmental Quality supported the bill, arguing that it “provides a forum … to exchange information with policy makers and have critical discussions about how we address environmental challenges Utah faces,” according to The Salt Lake Tribune. The bill took effect on May 1, 2024.[112]
  • Ten Republican-led states sue SEC over climate disclosure rules (2024): Ten Republican-led states, including Georgia, Alabama, and Alaska, filed a lawsuit on March 6, 2024, challenging federal rules mandating U.S.-listed companies to report climate-related risks, hours after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved the regulations. The rules seek to standardize disclosures on greenhouse gas emissions, climate risks, and preparations for a low-carbon economy. The states argue that the rules exceed the SEC's statutory authority.[116]
  • Arizona treasurer sues Biden administration against creation of national monument (2024): Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee (R) joined state Republican legislators in filing a lawsuit on February 12, 2024, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against the Biden administration, arguing against the creation of the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. The monument's creation aimed to establish protection standards for the area, which included banning mining. Yee argued in a statement that the land was state trust land and that the action was an “unlawful land grab by the Biden Administration [that] will directly affect Arizona’s economy and the livelihoods of our citizens.”[117][118]
  • Sixteen Republican governors oppose federal electric vehicle mandate (2024): Sixteen Republican governors wrote to President Joe Biden (D) on January 22, 2024, opposing a proposed standard from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that, depending on how car manufacturers decide to comply, could have two out of three vehicles be electric by 2032. The letter contended that consumers, not mandates, should determine the direction and timing of the electric vehicle industry and expressed concern that the country didn't have the necessary infrastructure to uphold the mandate.[119][120][121]
  • Republican lawmakers raise constitutional concerns over greenhouse gas rule (2023): Republican lawmakers in Congress have argued that a greenhouse gas reporting rule from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is unconstitutional. U.S. Senator Kevin Kramer (R-N.C.), argued that the rule exceeds the FHWA’s authority and violates state sovereignty. The rule “is contrary to congressional intent, usurps state authority by putting the federal government in the driver’s seat and is fundamentally unworkable in rural states like North Dakota,” argued Kramer in a November 22, 2023, statement.[126][127]
  • Florida Department of Transportation declines to participate in federal Carbon Reduction Program (2023): The Florida Department of Transportation announced on November 13, 2023, that the state will not participate in the federal Carbon Reduction Program, arguing that the program is an overreach of the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) authority. The Carbon Reduction Program was authorized under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 and aimed to grant federal funds to states to reduce transportation emissions. Florida Department of Transportation Secretary Jared Perdue argued that the law did not authorize “federally-induced mandates for states to track, or achieve a certain level, of reduced CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions,” and that the federal department had not provided guidance to states on the process by which they certify emission reductions, according to NBC Miami. Florida’s transportation department turned down approximately $320 million in federal funds aimed at reducing vehicle emissions with the decision not to participate in the program.[128]
  • Wyoming legislators advance proposal to fund state lawsuits against federal environmental regulations (2023): Wyoming's Joint Agriculture, State and Public Lands and Water Resources Committee advanced on October 30, 2023, a proposal for a $50 million appropriation to fund state lawsuits against the federal government over the implementation of national environmental and natural resource laws. Legislators proposed this to help the state oppose the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's draft plan for the Rock Springs area, which supporters of the $50 million appropriation argued threatened state and local interests in mining, drilling, grazing, and recreation.[129]

Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)

See also: Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)

This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG), such as rules requiring businesses to disclose carbon emissions data to the government, mandating or allowing the consideration of ESG factors in certain public investments, requiring corporate board diversity quotas, and otherwise promoting the consideration of ESG factors in business decisions.

  • State attorneys general sue over SEC climate disclosure rules (2024): State attorneys general in 10 states, led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) and Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr (R), filed a lawsuit against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on March 6, 2024, after the agency released regulations requiring publicly traded companies to submit standardized carbon emissions disclosures. The suit alleged the regulations were not clearly tied to the SEC's statutory authority and possibly violated the First Amendment. Nine lawsuits against the SEC’s final rules on climate disclosures for publicly traded companies were consolidated and assigned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit through a lottery process on March 21, 2024. The SEC paused the implementation of the disclosure rules on April 4, 2024, while the Eight Circuit reviewed lawsuits challenging the regulations.[133][134][135][136]
  • State attorneys general seek to block U.S. Department of Labor ESG rule (2023-2024): A coalition of state attorneys general on May 16, 2023, asked a federal judge in Texas to block the implementation of the Biden Labor Department’s rule on the use of ESG in retirement investment plans that fall under ERISA. The states argued that the Biden rule was not created properly because the previous rule (enacted under the Trump administration) was, in their view, improperly invalidated. The U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Texas dismissed the case on September 21, 2023.[137][138]
  • State attorneys general sue SEC over ESG fund disclosure rules (2023): Texas and three other states filed a lawsuit in February 2023 against a Securities and Exchange Commission rule requiring funds to disclose additional information about their votes on ESG shareholder proposals and requiring other corporate meeting disclosures related to ESG.[139]

Other ESG responses

Firearms

This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to firearms, such as federal rules over licensing or federal courts blocking state laws.

  • States sue Biden administration over firearm sales rules (2024): In three separate lawsuits, 26 states sued the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the U.S. Department of Justice over the definitions of the statutory terms “engaged in the business” and “predominantly earn a profit” for those selling firearms. The Republican attorneys general argue this rule requires every individual to obtain a federal firearms dealer license in order to sell a firearm.[142][143]
  • Missouri appeals federal judge's ban on state gun law enforcement (2023): Missouri officials appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on October 5, 2023, to reinstate the state's Second Amendment Preservation Act after the Biden administration challenged the law, leading a federal appeals court to block its enforcement. The law prohibited local police from enforcing federal gun laws and allowed residents to sue police for $50,000 if they did. The Supreme Court declined on October 20 to restore the law while the legal process continued.[144][145]

Healthcare

This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to healthcare, such as federal rules banning discrimination, requiring coverage for children, or setting staffing levels.

  • Florida attorney general sues Biden administration over healthcare rule (2024): Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) and the Catholic Medical Association (CMA) sued the Biden administration on May 7, 2024, over a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule that banned discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in healthcare, according to the text of the rule. Moody and CMA contended that the rule goes beyond anti-discrimination and requires healthcare providers to provide treatments such as puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries for transgender adults and minors, even if it conflicts with what the lawsuit called the providers' code of ethics. The lawsuit also argued that the HHS rule conflicted with a Florida law that banned similar treatments for minors. HHS issued the rule on May 6, 2024, to implement provisions of the Affordable Care Act.[146][147]
  • Florida sues Biden administration over children’s health policy (2024): The state of Florida sued the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) over a policy requiring 12 months of mandatory eligibility for children covered in the Florida KidsCare, the state’s Children’s Health Insurance Program, even after nonpayment of premiums. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on February 1, 2024, argued that the "arbitrary and capricious” rule reversed "CMS’s own long-existing, and still operative, regulation expressly permitting disenrollment during a continuous eligibility period."[148][149] Judge William Jung dismissed the lawsuit stating the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, ruling the state must instead use the "statutorily established administrative review process."[150]
  • Georgia sues Biden administration over rejected Medicaid program extension (2024): Governor Brian Kemp (R) has sued the Biden administration for a rejected Medicaid program extension. The state delayed starting the program, which features a controversial work requirement to qualify for medical assistance, after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services revoked approval for the program. A federal judge reinstated the program in 2022 and the program started in July 2023. When Georgia requested an extension to the program, which is set to expire in 2025, over the delays, the request was rejected. The state is seeking a court order to extend the program until September 30, 2028.[151]
  • Fifteen governors sent a letter opposing a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed rule that creates minimum staffing requirements in long-term care facilities (2023): In a letter signed by Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds and 14 other governors on November 1, 2023, the governors cited labor shortages as opposition to the proposed rule to create staffing minimums in long-term care facilities. The proposed rule "treats this complex, deep-rooted problem as something to be solved with a simple wave of the bureaucratic wand," the letter says. If the proposed rule, published September 6, 2023, is finalized, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) could take action against almost 96% of Iowa's long-term care facilities; these actions include but aren't limited to, "the termination of the provider agreement, denial of payment for all Medicare and/or Medicaid individuals by CMS, and/or civil money penalties, according to CMS data and the proposed rule." In his February 2023 State of the Union address, President Joe Biden (D) promised to protect senior citizens; the CMS proposed rule cites the same motivation. However, 15 state governors accuse Biden of overlooking the work they are doing to protect their long-term care beneficiaries with this sweeping rule. The period for comment on the proposed rule closed on November 6, 2023.[152][153][154][155]

Infrastructure

This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to infrastructure, such as federal infrastructure funding conditions, rules requiring that states use project labor agreements for federally funded projects, and other laws and executive orders related to infrastructure.

  • Louisiana and 15 other Republican-led states sue federal government over liquid natural gas export ban (2024): Sixteen Republican-led states filed a lawsuit March 21, 2024, against the U.S. Department of Energy's pause on liquid natural gas export approvals. The suit argued that the department did not have the legal authority to pause approvals under the Natural Gas Act.[156]
  • Missouri has lost $500,000 annually in federal funding since 2017 due to non-compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act (2023): In 2017, Missouri's Senate Bill 43 moved the Missouri Human Rights Act into non-compliance with the federal Fair Housing Act on an inconsistency between the intent and impact of discriminatory action. Both acts protect people from discriminatory treatment on the basis of race, gender, and disability, but the Fair Housing Act needs only to see the discriminatory impact, whereas, under the Missouri Human Rights Act, intent to discriminate must be proven. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is withholding funds provided through the Fair Housing Assistance Program, which are intended to help "accurate identification of issues at intake, through complete and sound investigations, to following through on administrative or judicial enforcement to ensure that victims of unlawful housing discrimination obtain full remedies and the public interest is served." In the 2023 legislative session, MO State House Representative Doug Mann (D) introduced House Bill 505 which proposed amending SB 43 into compliance with the FHA, but the bill died in committee.[157][158][159]
  • Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority sues Biden administration over oil and gas leases (2023): The Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), a public corporation of the state of Alaska, filed a lawsuit on October 18, 2023, against the Biden administration seeking to reinstate oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). AIDEA alleged that the U.S. Department of the Interior violated federal laws and regulations when it canceled the leases.[160]
  • Republican governors send letter opposing proposed project labor agreement rule (2022): Nineteen Republican governors wrote a letter to President Joe Biden (D) on October 17, 2022, opposing a proposed federal rule aimed at mandating the use of project labor agreements (PLAs) for federal construction projects. The letter was signed by governors from Arkansas, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. The governors argued that PLAs interfered with existing collective bargaining agreements and discouraged non-union competition. The rule aimed to implement an executive order Biden signed earlier in the year.[161]
  • Sixteen Republican governors sign letter opposing Biden administration's project labor agreement executive order (2022): Sixteen Republican governors wrote a letter to President Joe Biden (D) on April 26, 2022, opposing his executive order mandating project labor agreements (PLAs) on taxpayer-funded construction contracts exceeding $35 million. The letter was signed by governors from Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. The governors wrote that the executive order granted a monopoly to unions on federal projects and discouraged competition.[162]
  • Governors push back on federal infrastructure spending priorities (2022): Republican and Democratic governors expressed concern that the Biden administration’s proposed guidance for infrastructure spending priorities infringes on states' authority to allocate funds. The $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill passed with bipartisan support in 2021 and allocated federal funds to state and local governments. The specific use of these funds was to be decided by state and local governments, but some officials expressed concerns over the federal government’s priorities after the Federal Highway Administration released guidance in December 2021 encouraging officials to prioritize infrastructure spending on road repairs, public transit, and the development of bike lanes, rather than highway expansion and similar projects. Sixteen Republican governors signed a letter to the Biden administration on January 19, 2022, requesting that states be granted flexibility in implementing the law. Democratic governors also called for prioritizing highway expansions, according to The Register-Herald.[163][164][163]

Immigration

This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to immigration, such as federal programs that increase the amount of services states have to provide to immigrants (such as healthcare) or otherwise require states to expend resources (such as through law enforcement spending) to support a federal policy.

  • Texas announces plan to expand state border control efforts in response to Biden administration immigration enforcement policies (2024): Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) announced February 4, 2024, that Texas is expanding its National Guard presence and efforts to set up razor wire at the U.S.-Mexico border to deter illegal crossings. The announcement came after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas law enforcement officials could not block federal agents from accessing a 29-mile stretch of border to cut the razor wire Texas officials set up. The announcement also came ahead of the planned implementation of a Texas law making it a state-level crime to enter Texas from Mexico without authorization, which the Biden administration challenged in court.[165]
  • State attorneys general call on U.S. House to pass bill proposing expanding state authority to sue over federal immigration enforcement (2023): Twenty-six state attorneys general sent a letter to U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R) on November 13, 2023, asking him to prioritize consideration of the Immigration Enforcement Partnership Act of 2023. The bill proposed giving states more authority to sue the federal government if federal officials, in the view of the states, did not properly enforce immigration laws.[166]
  • 20 states sue Biden administration over immigration parole program (2023): A coalition of twenty Republican attorneys general sued the Biden administration on January 24, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas over an immigration program that allows 30,000 asylum seekers every month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to petition for asylum.[167] The plaintiffs allege that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “has effectively created a new visa program— without the formalities of legislation from Congress.”[168]
  • Eight states sue Biden administration over Central American Minors Program (2022): Eight states (Arkansas, Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, and Texas) sued the Biden administration on January 28, 2022, over the Central American Minors Program (CAMP). CAMP began in 2014 during the Barack Obama (D) administration and allowed children from certain countries "to reunite with their parents in the U.S. rather than using smugglers to enter the country illegally."[169] Donald Trump (R) ended CAMP in 2017 and Joe Biden restarted and expanded the program in March 2021. The state attorneys general who sued the Biden administration argued that the president didn't "have authority to run the program because it wasn’t approved by Congress" and that the program placed a financial burden on their states, which had to provide services like education and healthcare for the children.[169]

State sovereignty

This section tracks state responses to federal mandates that state officials believe are unconstitutional, outside of the scope of the federal government's power, and violative of their state's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.

  • Utah governor signs sovereignty bill into law (2024): Utah Governor Spencer Cox (R) signed the Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act into law on January 31, 2024, aimed at authorizing the state to not enforce regulations that the state legislature considers to be an overreach of federal power. The bill aims to protect the state’s sovereignty, which refers to the legal authority and responsibility of a state to govern and regulate its political affairs. State Senator Scott Sandall (R) introduced the bill aiming to create “a framework for the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, to prohibit the enforcement of a federal directive within the state by government officers if the Legislature determines the federal directive violates the principles of state sovereignty,” according to the bill. The bill prevents government officials from following federal regulations that the state legislature views as a violation of sovereignty if a concurrent resolution is passed by a two-thirds majority.[170][171]
  • Texas alleges Biden administration unlawfully enacted 2023 federal budget (2023): Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) on February 15, 2023, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas challenging the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) of 2023, arguing in part that certain CAA provisions violated state sovereignty and that Congress unlawfully passed the law without a quorum of members present.[172][173][174]
  • Ohio law creates state office to monitor potential federal overreach (2023): Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) on January 3, 2023, signed a law establishing a Tenth Amendment Center in the Ohio Solicitor General’s Office aimed at monitoring “federal executive orders, federal statutes, and federal regulations for potential abuse or overreach, including assertion of power inconsistent with the United States Constitution," according to the text.[175][176] The law tasked the center with reporting to the state solicitor general any federal actions that, in the center’s view, encroached on the powers of the state. The law then tasked the solicitor general with advising the state attorney general on further action.[177]
  • Ninth Circuit greenlights Arizona challenge to federal tax mandate (2022): A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 19, 2022, ruled 3-0 that Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the federal tax mandate under the American Rescue Plan Act, which prohibited states from using COVID-19 relief funds to offset reductions in net tax revenues and required the use of fund for specific responses related to the public health emergency. Brnovich argued that the tax mandate was unconstitutional because it penalized a state if it used federal COVID-19 relief funding to subsidize a tax cut. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court, which previously ruled that Arizona did not have standing to sue.[178][179]
  • Alaska governor issues order aiming to defend state sovereignty (2021): Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy (R) on November 2, 2021, issued an executive order aiming to defend the state’s sovereignty against what Dunleavy called the Biden administration’s overreach in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Dunleavy’s order cited the Biden administration's proposals requiring financial institutions to provide information to the Internal Revenue Service regarding certain private bank accounts, instructing federal law enforcement to monitor parents opposed to school district policies as domestic terrorists, and mandating coronavirus vaccines for federal contractors and certain private businesses. The order instructed the state attorney general to oppose such policies in court and prohibit state agencies from furthering “any action by a federal agency that infringes on the constitutional rights of Alaskans.”[180]

Workforce and employment

This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to workforce and employment, such as guidance for employers on accommodations for workers or rules to force compliance with civil penalties.

  • Texas attorney general sues over gender identity guidelines for employers (2024): Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) filed a lawsuit on May 21, 2024, against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in response to its April 2024 gender identity guidance. The guidance states that denying an employee accommodations for their gender identity, such as prohibiting an employee from using the bathroom of their gender identity, is unlawful workplace harassment. In the lawsuit, Paxton claims the guidance forces Texas to reevaluate its agencies, causing "irreparable harm" to state finances and sovereignty, and redefine “sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[181]
  • Arizona attorney general leads five states in suing Biden administration over executive order mandating federal contractor minimum wage increase (2022): Then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) announced on February 8, 2022, that Arizona and four other states were filing suit in a U.S. district court to challenge President Joe Biden's (D) Executive Order (EO) 14026, which required the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to issue regulations increasing the minimum wage for federal contractors—including universities and other state entities contracting with the federal government—to $15 an hour. The states argued in part that the directive exceeded the president’s authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA).[185][186] The district court rejected the challenge on January 6, 2023.[187]

Work requirements for public assistance

This section tracks state responses to federal mandates involving work requirements for public assistance, including how states implement, challenge, or modify federal rules tying program eligibility to employment, job training, or other work-related activities.


State responses related to the administrative state

See also: Administrative state

This section tracks state responses to federal mandates involving the administrative state, highlighting how states comply with, challenge, or navigate federal requirements tied to funding, programs, regulations, or directives. Examples include meeting grant conditions, implementing mandated programs, adopting federal regulations, or resisting directives that influence state policies and governance.

Administrative state legislation

This section tracks administrative state legislation introduced or enacted by states that relates to federalism. It focuses on laws and policies that address the balance of power between state and federal governments, including efforts to assert state sovereignty, limit federal overreach, or define state authority in response to federal regulations and mandates. This may involve legislation that challenges federal rules, clarifies state roles in implementing federal programs, or advocates for state-based solutions to issues traditionally handled by the federal government.

Enacted state legislation

This section lists administrative state legislation enacted by states in 2024 that relates to federalism.

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=State_responses_to_federal_mandates&oldid=10504822"