States, including state courts, play a much bigger role than many people realize in determining whether and how federal policies get implemented — and in curbing abuses of power.
The early weeks of the Trump administration have included a jaw-dropping number of (often illegal) policy changes, many targeting immigrants, transgender people, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, along with efforts to politicize, weaken, or eliminate government agencies. States don’t often get mentioned when we talk about checks and balances, but I’ve been struck by the varied ways that states are flexing their constitutional muscles in response.
To start with, states can be plaintiffs. Democratic state attorneys general have filed multiple federal lawsuits against Trump administration policies, scoring early wins in blocking the president’s order purporting to revoke birthright citizenship, temporarily halting the federal funding freeze, and temporarily barring Department of Government Efficiency officials from accessing sensitive Treasury Department information.
State constitutions and laws can also be an important counter pressure on institutions considering “complying in advance” with the administration by changing their policies when they’re not obliged to do so under federal law.
