Democratic attorneys general this week filed their 100th lawsuit against the Trump administration, part of a coordinated legal strategy. 

And the attorneys general say they are winning most of their court cases against the administration. Of the 67 cases with court rulings, the Democratic Attorneys General Association says its members have won 55 of those challenges. 

A legal challenge over environmental regulations filed this week is the AGs’ latest effort to oppose the ever-widening power of the executive branch. Since the president’s second term began last January, Democratic-led states have sued the administration on a variety of issues — ranging from the withholding of congressionally approved funds to immigration enforcement to the administration’s tariffs on foreign goods. 

Marking its 100th lawsuit, the Democratic Attorneys General Association said its members were the only group of elected leaders successfully opposing the Trump administration’s “harmful and reckless actions.”

“For too long, Trump has trampled the rule of law,” Sean Rankin, the association president, said in a news release. “And Democratic AGs have held him accountable for the harms he has done to our economy and our democracy.”

On Tuesday, a group of state and local governments sued over the administration’s repeal of limits on emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. The coalition argued the rollback was unlawful, saying the federal government has failed to provide a reasoned basis for it or consider the new technologies. The Trump administration has said the move was made “to ensure affordable, dependable energy for American families.” 

While it’s not unusual for states to sue the federal government, it’s one of the few paths Democrats have available to oppose President Donald Trump’s actions, with Republicans controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Oregon Democratic Attorney General Dan Rayfield has been among the most prolific, suing the administration more than 50 times. Rayfield has said the suits are not political theater — they’re a vital means to checking the president’s overreach.

“People should be shocked that Oregon has filed 55 lawsuits,” he told Stateline earlier this year. “Their mind should be blown. But their mind should be equally blown at how often we’re winning these cases.”

State lawsuits represent a slice of the more than 700 lawsuits the Trump administration has faced since last January, according to a New York Times tracker. In more than 400 cases, the courts have let the administration’s policies stay in effect even as they remain in active litigation. But in more than 150 cases, the tracker shows the courts have at least partially halted administration policies. 

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

A special committee of the Wisconsin Senate approved the release of a report detailing allegations from Republicans that Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul and the Department of Justice skirted the law by using funds from out-of-state groups to hire lawyers. 

The report’s release comes as Kaul is set to face re-election in November against Eric Toney, the Republican district attorney of Fond du Lac County. 

Republicans said the report shows Kaul’s willingness to circumvent the law in a way that amounts to the DOJ being “for sale,” while Democrats accused Republicans of making baseless accusations to create political theater in an election year. 

Faced with a limited budget from the GOP-controlled Legislature and increased scrutiny on the DOJ since the enactment of the Republican lame duck laws in 2018, Kaul hired the out-of-state lawyers to assist with the enforcement of the state’s environmental regulations. 

The lawyers were given fellowships to work as special assistant attorneys general through a New York University program tied to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The attorneys were paid by the NYU program and officially classified as volunteers under the state employment system yet given the powers of an assistant attorney general. 

Kaul appeared before the committee in February to give testimony. During that hearing, he said the classification as volunteers had been discussed with and approved by the state’s ethics commission. An ethics complaint against the arrangement has been pending for more than a year. 

In the report, which the oversight committee voted 4-2 along party lines to adopt on Tuesday, the Republicans allege that the arrangement was “not authorized” by Wisconsin statutes, that the DOJ violated state law by not immediately administering the attorneys oaths of office, exposes concerns about the state’s system for adjudicating ethics complaints, opens the state up to influence from outside interests and that the DOJ did not fully cooperate with records requests filed by the committee. 

The report recommends that the DOJ immediately terminate the agreements that facilitated the hiring of the attorneys. It also recommends that the Legislature pass a resolution declaring the hirings unlawful, more strictly manage the processes through which the DOJ is funded and pass legislation that only state employees can conduct prosecutions. Additionally the report states that government attorneys should take their oaths of office before conducting any work for the state and that the state Ethics Commission should be subject to faster timelines for adjudicating complaints.

Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Gillet) said he’s concerned that allowing arrangements like the one DOJ established with the NYU program means an attorney general from any party can outsource DOJ functions to outside interest groups. 

“If attorney generals, not just Josh Kaul, but if attorney generals are permitted to do this, then the DOJ is for hire. It’s for sale,” Wimberger said. 

At a news conference following the committee meeting, Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) said that the attorneys were “focused solely … on bread and butter environmental issues, keeping out air, our water and our Wisconsin lands safe, and that’s what people want” from the DOJ. 

Habush Sinykin and the other Democrat on the committee, Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove), argued that the Republicans were focused on creating political drama out of standard DOJ functions when instead they should have been working to solve problems Wisconsinites care about. 

“What we just heard in there was that definition of political theater, the opposite of what the people of Wisconsin are seeking from our legislators,” Habush Sinykin said. “Which is very much what they want us focusing on, housing affordability, Knowles-Nelson, child care, all those matters which this Legislature and under this Republican majority, we have not gotten to.” 

The Democrats pointed out that last February, Republicans introduced a bill that would have explicitly prohibited the DOJ from using legal services of anyone who is not a state employee. The bill, authored by Wimberger and Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee), who is also on the committee, did not even receive a public hearing. 

Instead, the Democrats said, the issue was ignored until the report was released after the Legislature had adjourned for the year. 

“You should have moved it through committee. We should have voted on it on the Senate floor,” Habush Sinykin said during the meeting. “And I wish I could have had that chance, rather than to let it just sit there and go nowhere, and to then call us back for this purpose and to use it as a weapon.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin and 20 other states filed a lawsuit Monday that seeks to prevent the U.S. Department of Agriculture from imposing “anti-discrimination” conditions on all the money the department disburses to the states. 

USDA provides billions of dollars in funding to the states every year to administer programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — which in Wisconsin helps nearly 700,000 residents afford groceries. 

Under a new policy issued late last year, USDA states it will not provide any financial disbursements unless the states agree to conditions involving “gender ideology,” “fair athletic opportunities” for women and girls and immigration. 

The lawsuit argues the conditions are overly broad and vague, that sub-agencies within USDA are interpreting the rules differently, potentially conflict with existing state laws and amount to unconstitutional roadblocks between the states and the money that Congress has already appropriated to be sent to the states. 

“With billions at stake for life sustaining food and critical funding for their residents, the States may be forced to accept funding conditions that they fundamentally do not understand, that are designed to coerce the States and their instrumentalities to adopt USDA’s policies, and which are ultimately unlawful,” the lawsuit states. 

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, along with the attorneys general of California, Illinois and Massachusetts led the development of the suit which is being joined by Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. 

Aside from the nutrition assistance programs, USDA also funds programs that aid and support Wisconsin farmers, prevent forest fires and protect local ecosystems. UW-Madison received $68 million from USDA during the 2024-25 fiscal year for agricultural research and other programs. On Monday, USDA announced more than $2 million in spending to support timber operations in Monroe and Shawano counties.  

“USDA funding helps keep kids and families fed and healthy,” Kaul said in a statement. “Attempting to use this critical funding to further unrelated policy goals of the Trump administration is wrong and unlawful.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case that centers on a dispute between state Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, and the Republican-controlled Legislature about who controls money the Department of Justice is awarded as part of lawsuit settlements. 

The suit is yet another challenge to the lame duck laws Republican legislators and outgoing Gov. Scott Walker enacted in 2018 in the days before the end of Walker’s term and another instance of the Supreme Court stepping in to enforce the separation of powers between Wisconsin’s executive and legislative branches. 

Under several provisions of the lame duck laws, the Legislature sought to limit the executive branch’s authority to spend money. The Supreme Court previously struck down provisions that required the approval of legislative committees before executive agencies could act. 

The Legislature argues that under the law, the attorney general is required to put money from a financial settlement into the state’s general fund, which legislators control through the normal budget process. Kaul argues he can put the settlement funds in accounts controlled by DOJ but doesn’t have the authority to spend those funds without approval from the Legislature’s budget-writing Joint Finance Committee. 

Initially filed in Polk County Circuit Court in 2021, when a conservative majority controlled the Supreme Court, the case appeared in the 2nd District Court of Appeals in 2024 where a 2-1 decision reversed the circuit court’s ruling that Kaul could direct settlement funds into DOJ accounts. 

That majority opinion was authored by Judge Maria Lazar, a conservative judge now running for a seat on the Supreme Court. 

“Despite the legislation expressly designed to bring all settlement funds under legislative control and despite the simple and plain language of that legislation, the Attorney General has continued to act precisely in the manner which the Legislature sought to end,” Lazar wrote.

Generally, conservative legal interpretations of the law involve strict adherence to the exact language of a statute while liberal legal interpretations take into account intent. In this case, that typical structure is flipped. The DOJ argues that it is following the exact language of the law by directing the settlement money into accounts for specific DOJ programs that fall under the umbrella of the general fund and not spending those funds without approval from JFC. DOJ also notes that historically, Wisconsin attorneys general have had broad authority to spend settlement money. 

DOJ attorney Hannah Jurss argued to the Court Wednesday that it isn’t DOJ’s fault the Legislature wasn’t precise enough when crafting the law — though the law has effectively cut off Kaul’s ability to direct the expenditure of settlement funds. 

“We now do not have discretion to expend those monies. So if the intention was to prevent the attorney general’s expenditure of settlement funds as properly understood, it did that,” Jurss said. “There are now monies sitting there that are left to the attorney general’s discretion that the attorney general cannot spend. Instead, I think what the court is seeing in the Legislature’s arguments are unsupported assertions about some sort of broader intent that, frankly, have no support whatsoever in the text of the statutes, in statutory history.” 

Jurss added that a similar structure guides the budget statutes across state government, so if the Court sided with the Legislature, much of the existing budget framework would be affected. She noted programs in the Departments of Tourism and Military Affairs that would be hit. 

“This Court should not cut the wire on the budget statute structure across Wisconsin statutes simply for the Legislature to accomplish its preferred outcome here,” she said. 

Misha Tseytlin, the attorney for the Legislature — whose former position as state solicitor general was cut by the Legislature in the lame duck laws — argued the Court should side with the Legislature to stop Kaul from finding ways around the law. 

“Because the attorney general had found his way around the Legislature’s prior attempt,” Tseytlin said. “I know there’s not a lot of sympathy for the Legislature from the courts, but imagine how frustrating it is. You’re trying to rein in the attorney general, you’re trying to get them to stop these practices, you enact this JFC provision, and they find a way around that.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 4 minutes

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that highlights how judges can apply different interpretations of the law and constitution to suit their ideological viewpoints.

The case resulted from disagreements between the Republican-led Legislature and Attorney General Josh Kaul following the 2018 lame-duck session that limited the powers of the incoming Democratic administration. 

The lawsuit, which the Legislature filed in 2021 when there was a conservative majority on the state Supreme Court, focuses on who has oversight of the dollars the state receives from legal settlements. The Legislature argues the 2018 law requires the attorney general to put money from a financial settlement in the general fund, which state lawmakers control. Kaul argues that he can put settlement funds in accounts that the Department of Justice oversees and still comply with the law.

In December 2024, the 2nd District Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling reversed part of a circuit court decision that said Kaul could continue to direct settlement dollars into DOJ-controlled accounts.

The Appeals Court opinion was written by Judge Maria Lazar, a conservative who is running for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April against liberal Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor. Lazar ruled the language in the 2018 law aligns with the Legislature’s arguments that settlement dollars belong in the general fund. 

“Despite the legislation expressly designed to bring all settlement funds under legislative control and despite the simple and plain language of that legislation, the Attorney General has continued to act precisely in the manner which the Legislature sought to end,” Lazar wrote.

But in a dissent, retiring Appeals Court Judge Lisa Neubauer, the only liberal on the Waukesha-based District 2 Court of Appeals, criticized Lazar for basing her decision on what the Legislature intended, rather than a strict reading of various clauses in the law that may give the attorney general wiggle room.

The oral arguments this week follow a series of decisions in recent years on lawsuits challenging the separation of powers between the Legislature and the executive branch. In June, the court unanimously struck down a portion of the 2018-era lame-duck laws that required the attorney general to receive approval from the Legislature’s budget-writing committee to settle most civil cases. For the 4-3 divided liberal-majority court, the rulings in these cases have shown agreement among the justices over the need for clear boundaries between the core powers of the branches of government, legal experts said. 

Where this latest lawsuit differs is the debate seems focused more on the language of the law than the separation of powers, said Chad Oldfather, a professor at the Marquette University Law School. Typically the conservative approach to statutory interpretation has been to focus on the basic meaning of the law while the liberal approach has been to examine the law’s intent. That has been the opposite in this case, Oldfather said.  

“The advocates are kind of flipping a little bit the usual ideology of the statutory interpretation approach,” Oldfather said. “And all that’s going on while it’s clear that there are some people on the court who want to fundamentally shift the way the court does statutory interpretation. So there’s a real interesting mix of issues going on in this case.” 

The law in question has been wrapped up in a yearslong debate over separation of powers that has made its way to justices in recent years, said Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. In many of those cases, the Supreme Court opinions have shown the justices interested in balanced branches of government. 

“There seems to be an inclination to reinstate greater separation of powers between the branches and preserve the important roles of various actors, whether that’s the attorney general or the governor or the Legislature,” Godar said. 

For example, in a 6-1 decision in 2024, with Justice Annette Ziegler dissenting, the court ruled the Legislature’s Republican-led budget-writing committee could not block spending by the Department of Natural Resources for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund. 

“While the legislature’s motivation for overseeing the public fisc may be well-intentioned, fundamentally, the legislature may not execute the law,” Justice Rebecca Bradley, a member of the conservative bloc, wrote in the majority opinion. “The people gave the executive alone this power.”

In the 7-0 decision last June on the Legislature’s approval of the attorney general’s civil case settlements, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote that the constitution does not give lawmakers the ability to execute the law when there are financial decisions. 

“If the Legislature has a constitutional interest in the execution of the laws every time an executive action involves money, there would be virtually no area where the Legislature could not insert itself into the execution of the law,” Hagedorn wrote. 

There are still areas of disagreement among the court in these types of cases. Last July, the court reached a 4-3 decision in a lawsuit between Gov. Tony Evers and the Legislature, which determined 2018 lame-duck legislation that gave a legislative committee the ability to delay rules and policy changes from executive agencies was unconstitutional.

In that case, the court’s four liberal justices were in the majority. Hagedorn wrote an opinion both concurring and dissenting with the majority’s decision, while Bradley and Ziegler dissented.

“The majority has created a grave constitutional imbalance by strictly construing, and thus confining, the constitutional powers of the legislative branch while not doing the same when it comes to the power of the executive branch,” Ziegler wrote.

Latest Wisconsin Supreme Court case flips the script on which judges strictly interpret the law is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul said that the nearly eight hours of hearings held by the newly established Committee on the Oversight of the Department of Justice this week amounted to “political theater.” 

In a series of hearings Tuesday and Wednesday, the committee, chaired by Senate President Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk), dug into allegations that the DOJ violated state rules when it hired out of state lawyers on contract to enforce the state’s environmental regulations. 

The attorneys were given fellowships to work as special assistant attorneys general through a New York University program tied to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The testimony obtained by the committee included input from Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s largest business lobby and one of the state Republican Party’s most powerful allies, and a dairy farmer who was subject to an enforcement action by the state after he operated his factory farm without a permit for six years. 

The Republican members of the committee said the fellowships presented “troubling” opportunities for a third-party organization to exert partisan influence over the work of the DOJ. Throughout the testimony, Republicans also complained about the specifics of state employment classifications, the timeliness of paperwork filing and previous contributions Bloomberg has made to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. 

At a press conference Wednesday afternoon, Kaul compared the committee’s work to former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman’s widely maligned review of the 2020 election. 

“Increasingly, what we’re seeing are actions from the committee that I would describe as Gableman-esque,” Kaul said. “This is clearly an exercise in political theater, not a substantive exercise, and that’s really unfortunate, because the reality is that we do have serious issues to address on behalf of the people of Wisconsin, and we have progress to make.”

Kaul also questioned how an investigation into outside influence on state government could give the state’s most powerful lobbying organization a multi-hour platform to testify.

“The purported basis for this is to investigate outside influence, and the only outside influence that is going on here is the outside influence on our Legislature,” he said. “Just yesterday, the state’s most powerful lobbying organization got a platform to testify from this Legislature. We did not hear from a single person who was impacted by the harmful pollution, who was there to talk about those harms. So we have a one-sided presentation from the Legislature, and any concerns about outside influence are ones that relate to the actions of the Legislature, not the Department of Justice.”

Republicans on the committee complained that the fellows were paid through the university program while officially being classified by the state as volunteers and that Kaul seeking this outside funding for staff attorneys amounted to an end-run around the Legislature’s authority to decide the department’s budget. 

“If you’re truly a leader of a department, you shouldn’t give up. You seem to believe in certain things, but you’ve given up on trying to help with your own state resources,” Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee) said, asking why Kaul didn’t ask the Legislature for additional money to fund environmental enforcement attorneys. 

Kaul said he’s “confident the current majority will not fund additional environmental positions.” 

Tomczyk also spent a significant chunk of his testimony asking about the timing of DOJ filing paperwork to officially hire the fellows, including when they took their oaths of office and got licensed to practice law in Wisconsin. He compared delays in the oaths being completed with the Tuesday testimony of dairy farmer Phil Mlsna — who missed a filing deadline with the DNR, causing the loss of his dairy farm’s permit.

Felzkowski, a former member of the Joint Finance Committee, has been among the Republicans most hostile to the state’s environmental rules and conservation programs. As a member of JFC, she anonymously held up the Pelican River Forest conservation project and has been heavily opposed to the extension of the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program. 

Throughout her questioning of Kaul, she argued that funding environmental enforcement is inherently partisan. 

“You want the citizens of the state of Wisconsin to believe this is a non-partisan organization without a personal agenda or their own private agenda,” Felzkowski said. 

Kaul said enforcing the state’s environmental laws is a partisan issue only in that many Republicans don’t believe the government should address climate change. 

“Well, what I would say is that the center is focused on environmental protection issues, and so a lot of it is a question of if you view protecting the environment, addressing climate change, working to protect safe and clean water, as partisan issues or not,” Kaul said. 

Following the hearing’s conclusion, the Republican members of the committee held a press conference to say they’d assess the testimony and release a report. During the press conference, Tomczyk questioned if the DOJ should be “punished” over the fellowship issue. 

“If we’re going to punish a farmer for not having his paperwork done, should the DOJ be punished for not having theirs?” he asked, adding that he has “some ideas” for what the punishment would look like. 

The Democrats on the committee said that after two days of testimony, Republicans couldn’t point to any specific cases in which the fellows’ work on a case was unduly influenced. 

“What was clear from the testimony over the last two days is there was not one, not one example of any legal matter or enforcement action that was worked on by these legal fellows that pointed to any special interest,” Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay), a former environmental attorney, said. “They were working on bread-and-butter environmental enforcement actions pertaining to water quality, CAFO regulation, wetland remediation and the like, everything was what we need as a state to protect our communities.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE