During the early days of Donald J. Trump’s first presidency, lawyers at the attorney general’s office in Washington State would gather to strategize about what they saw as troubling directives being handed down by the White House.
There were orders barring travelers from Muslim-majority countries, rolling back environmental rules and ending protections for young immigrants. Lawyers in Washington and other states controlled by Democrats believed the actions were endangering rights and lives.
But there was one thing working to their advantage: Many of the administration’s orders were written in such a sloppy fashion, said Bob Ferguson, Washington State’s attorney general, that he repeatedly asked his staff members the same question: “Do you guys think a lawyer looked at this?” Often, it seemed as if nobody had, which gave the state ample opportunities to pursue what became a stream of successful legal challenges.
Now, as Mr. Trump prepares for a second term, Mr. Ferguson said he anticipated that the initiatives from the incoming White House might not carry the same flaws. Mr. Ferguson, a Democrat who was recently elected to be Washington’s next governor, said Mr. Trump has built a cadre of advisers who have spent years planning ways to implement their plans for the country. The new administration also stands to benefit from a court system now tilted more in Mr. Trump’s favor.
“A concern I have is that Donald Trump and his administration may well be better prepared on their end,” Mr. Ferguson said.
Around the country, states led by Democrats have expressed alarm about many of the new measures that Mr. Trump and his allies have described and have made broad preparations of their own. Lawyers have been scouring through the conservative policy plan known as Project 2025, and they have been strategizing how to challenge any such plans in an altered judicial landscape. Private advocacy groups have hundreds of lawyers ready to go to court. Governors in Democratic-led states have been preparing to coordinate. This week, Democratic attorneys general were gathering for a meeting in Pennsylvania.
The incoming administration — emboldened after prevailing with voters this year — carries newfound might that Mr. Trump did not have eight years ago. Republicans are now poised to have full control of Congress, and there is a conservative-leaning Supreme Court. That has left Democratic state officials as perhaps the best suited to mount political and legal challenges.
Mr. Trump has laid out a broad vision to alter the nation, one that in some ways mirrors policies he attempted to put into place during his first term, often to see them blocked in the courts.
He and his advisers have already outlined plans to build “vast holding facilities” to detain undocumented immigrants and then deport them. He campaigned on promises to “kill” Environmental Protection Agency emissions rules adopted to combat climate change. He has said he would consider deploying U.S. troops to enforce security at the border and potentially in Democrat-run cities to arrest undocumented immigrants and help quell protests and crime.
Mr. Trump is preparing to install some of his most loyal followers in key positions, including the office of attorney general, which is responsible for defending government policies and prosecuting those who fail to follow them. At least one potential nominee has already encountered bipartisan resistance.
Matt Gaetz, a former congressman from Florida who was the subject of a House Ethics Committee investigation, withdrew his name from consideration on Thursday after it became clear that his confirmation would most likely be blocked amid allegations that he engaged in sexual misconduct and illicit drug use. Mr. Gaetz has repeatedly denied the allegations.
On Thursday, Mr. Trump put forward Pam Bondi, the former Florida attorney general, as his new pick. In Florida, Ms. Bondi tried unsuccessfully to overturn and weaken the Affordable Care Act and opposed expanding legal protections for the L.G.B.T.Q. community.
William Tong, the state attorney general in Connecticut, was one of those who expressed concern that the Trump Justice Department would be better prepared to defend its policies in court. He said he feared that Mr. Trump would be able to operate with fewer political and ethical guardrails than during his first administration, and that, with Congress and the courts on his side, there might also be fewer legal guardrails.
“I think we are prepared for it to be much more aggressive, much quicker and much harder,” he said.
During Mr. Trump’s first administration, the White House often stumbled as a result of procedural flaws in its executive orders and other initiatives. When Mr. Trump moved in 2017 to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, which provides protections for young immigrants known as Dreamers, Mr. Ferguson and others filed suit. Part of their case was based on what lawyers described as the harmful effects of eliminating protections for young immigrants who might have spent much of their lives in the United States.
But they also argued that the administration had violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which specifies the processes government agencies must follow to develop and implement new regulations.
As the litigation proceeded, the lower courts blocked implementation of the order. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the states, agreeing that Mr. Trump’s implementation had not followed the proper administrative protocol.
States had other successes: When the Trump administration wanted to add a question on citizenship to the census, states challenged the plan, and the Supreme Court agreed that the administration’s explanation for adding the question appeared to have been “contrived.” When the administration moved to ban travel from seven largely Muslim nations, a challenge from Mr. Ferguson’s office led a judge to block the administration’s initial measure and forced the White House to narrow its scope.
Mr. Ferguson’s office also pointed to Mr. Trump’s failures on rolling back environmental regulations. In those cases, state challenges succeeded because of missteps such as missed deadlines.
In total, Mr. Ferguson’s office said, Washington State was a party to 99 lawsuits against the federal government during the Trump administration, with 55 wins. The state lost three cases, having to do with law enforcement funding, the counting of undocumented immigrants in apportioning congressional seats and aircraft greenhouse gas emissions. Other cases are pending or have been made moot by the actions of the Biden administration.
Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, said he expected major new legal fights between Democratic-led states and the Trump administration that could reshape federal and state relations.
The White House, Mr. Chemerinsky said, will most likely try various strategies to force state and local governments to help round up immigrants for deportation. But while the courts have so far ruled that the federal government cannot withhold money to force state agencies to help with immigration enforcement, he said, it is likely that the issue will be litigated once again.
Similarly, the Trump administration might try to raise the issue of federal pre-emption, which generally prohibits state laws that conflict with federal law, on issues such as environmental standards, abortion and transgender rights in schools. States have frequently argued that while federal law sets a base line for various policies, states are permitted to exceed those standards.
“The question will be, does federal law pre-empt in these areas, or can states do more to protect rights?” said Mr. Chemerinsky, who said he expects the issue to be litigated.
Democratic leaders have signaled that they will try to work around the administration if necessary.
California did just that during Mr. Trump’s first term, when he sought to block the state’s longstanding limits on auto emissions standards, which were stricter than those in the rest of the nation. Working in secret, state officials did an end run, striking legal agreements with four of the world’s largest automakers — Ford, Volkswagen, Honda and BMW — to reduce their tailpipe emissions according to limits set by the state.
Now California is seeking permission from the Biden administration to phase out the sale of new gasoline-powered passenger vehicles in the state after 2035. The state also is requiring about three-quarters of new trucks sold there after 2035 to produce zero emissions. Mr. Trump has signaled that he would again seek to block California’s influence on environmental policymaking, but regulators from the state have been talking to automakers about emissions limits and have begun to enlist other states.
Some Democrats say they are still optimistic that litigation can once again be successful in blocking some Trump administration initiatives, even if the administration is better prepared. Phil Weiser, the attorney general of Colorado, said he believed that while the Supreme Court would most likely issue rulings that he found objectionable, he also believed that the justices would hold strong on foundational principles such as freedom of speech and separation of powers.
“I’m going to choose to take the positive view that we are going to get through this,” Mr. Weiser said. “Although it’s not going to be easy, the work of us continuing as a democratic republic is what’s on the line.”
Mr. Trump’s rise to power has had the effect of helping Democratic attorneys general find a common voice. Early in his first presidency, they began meeting every Tuesday morning and never stopped. This week, as they met in Pennsylvania, the stakes rose to new heights.
“We don’t know exactly what’s coming and how it’s going to come, so we just need to be ready,” said Ellen Rosenblum, the attorney general of Oregon. “I don’t think there are any A.G.s on vacation right now.”
The post Blue States Worry That Blocking Trump Will Be Tougher This Time appeared first on New York Times.
