Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats were decimated at nearly every level of government over the past six years. Republicans control the House and may well do so for the foreseeable future; the party is looking at a very favorable Senate map in 2018. Democrats control just 31 of the 99 state legislative chambers across the country and have a measly 16 governorships.

The oppositions glimmer of hope: Democrats have 22 state attorneys generalenough to gum up the works for President Donald Trump's agenda when congressional Democrats can't.

And these AGs aren't humble about this point.

New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman told CNN, "There's a sense of urgency and a real sense that we are now the guardians of the rule of law in the United States." New Mexico attorney general Hector Balderas told the New York Times, "It does seem that we are becoming, potentially, the fourth branch of government."

That fourth branch is responsible for Trump's chief policy setback so far. Washington state attorney general Bob Ferguson sued to stop the president's executive order restricting travel from seven Middle Eastern countries. Washington state, later joined in the suit by Minnesota, won a temporary restraining order against the administration, which was upheld by the 9th Circuit.

Other Democratic attorneys general haven't wanted to be left out: Many signed a statement condemning the executive order shortly after Trump issued it, denouncing the order as "unconstitutional, un-American and unlawful." A total of 18 attorneys general joined in an amicus brief supporting Washington state.

Extreme vetting will hardly be the only target of litigation. A group of Democratic AGs, led by Connecticut's George Jepsen, has already filed a motion to protect the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency with wide-ranging powers created under the Dodd-Frank law, which Trump wants to roll back. The AGs want the courts to defend the bureau, even though a district court last fall found the structure of the CFPB to be unconstitutional.

The Democratic AGs have a lot on their plate. They've stated their plans to challenge a reversal of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan and other Environmental Protection Agency rules; to protect sanctuary cities; to push back against potential voter integrity measures from the Justice Department; and to protect funding for Planned Parenthood and contraception.

Virginia's attorney general, Mark Herring, is pushing for more power to prosecute hate crimes because he doesn't think Trump's Justice Department will.

Such state challenges to federal authority might almost make one think Democrats have discovered federalism. Republican AGs such as Greg Abbott, Scott Pruitt, Pam Bondi, and Ken Cuccinelli became stars challenging the Obama administration on Obamacare, immigration, and environmental rules (as chronicled in these pages by Fred Barnes, "The Last Redoubt," July 22, 2013). So why is it any different when Democrats do it?

"Conservative attorneys general have had some success at this, but progressives have a broader agenda," says Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice and a senior legal fellow with FreedomWorks. "Conservatives will use state litigation to fight government action. The left has always used litigation as another means of legislation."

Still, the Republican AGs who hounded the Obama administration were following the Democrats' lead. It was a dozen Democratic state attorneys general who sued to force President George W. Bush's EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. It resulted in a 5-4 ruling that gave states wide latitude for bringing lawsuits. And of course, well before that was the pioneering model for activist attorneys general: the tobacco wars of the 1990s, in which states sued to force tobacco firms to pay for Medicaid costs attributed to smoking.

But don't expect a repeat of the successful tobacco litigation, says Peggy Little, a constitutional litigation attorney in Connecticut: "So many states cite the tobacco model, but there is a much more even spread with Republican and Democratic attorneys general," she says. "With tobacco, you had 46 states. It's not the same today."

Democrats aren't expecting any Republicans to join their litigation, which has an air of election fundraising about it. The Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA), for example, is an arm of the Democratic National Committee. After the Washington state victory, DAGA posted on its Facebook page: "Tonight is a win for The Constitution, for the idea that no man is above the law. Democratic AGs will lead that fight. Chip in and stand with them."

When it comes to sparring with Trump, New York's Eric Schneiderman may have the most experience. He brought the civil fraud suit against Trump University (which, after the election, Trump settled for $25 million without admitting guilt). New York provides expansive powers to its attorney general over the state's businesses and financial institutions. Schneiderman may use those expansive powers to turn over every rock of the Trump corporate empire based in New York state, making himself a de facto special prosecutor.

But is this sort of national activism what states have attorneys general for? No, says Hans Bader, senior attorney for the Competitive Enterprise Institute: "There is always an incentive to sue because that's what they do. The traditional role of state attorneys general was supposed to be to defend and advise state agencies, not being roving inquisitors."

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for the Daily Signal and author of Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.

Follow this link:
The Democrats' Last Hope - The Weekly Standard