By FOCUS, a Leonine business
In 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Obama administration, enacted strict vehicle emissions and mileage standards aimed at increasing fuel economy for cars and light-duty trucks. The rules sought to require these types of vehicles to get at least 55 miles per gallon for model years 2022-2025. Numerous automakers and unions were notably in support of these standards.
This April, the EPA moved to roll-back these standards to prevent them from taking effect. “The Obama administration’s determination was wrong,” said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in announcing the agency’s decision to nullify the standards. He accused the agency, under his predecessors, of cutting the rulemaking process short for political reasons, making inaccurate assumptions, and setting the standards too high. Administrator Pruitt, meanwhile, is currently the subject of at least 10 investigations into his management of the EPA, with questions swirling about his future at the head of the agency.
In what has become a characteristic response to nearly every type of executive branch action, a coalition of 17 states and the District of Columbia, led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, announced in early May that they have filed suit against the Trump administration and the EPA over the proposal. Combined, the states represent over 40 percent of both the total U.S. car market and the total U.S. population. The states’ lawsuit claims that the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously, failed to follow its own regulations, and violated the Clean Air Act in making the initial determination to roll-back these fuel standards. This counterattack by the states represents yet another act in a growing trend of state attorneys general taking legal action against the federal government in protest of administration policies.
The tactic of slowing or halting federal action through lawsuits is not new or innovative, though it has significantly picked up steam over the past two administrations. As a result, state attorneys general have taken on an increasingly political role, acting as a “last resort” to halt or delay policies that either the AG or the state disagree with. During the Obama administration, red states often formed such coalitions to challenge the administration on nearly every issue, from healthcare, to immigration, to civil rights. In some cases, the states were successful, such as when a Supreme Court ruling put a halt to an immigration plan by the Obama administration. In other cases, such as the numerous lawsuits filed over the Affordable Care Act, states were often less successful.
Under the Trump administration, this trend has not only continued, but has significantly ramped up; the tables have turned however, with blue states now forming such coalitions to challenge a wide array of policy issues opposed by the states. According to Stateline, state attorneys general filed 36 such lawsuits in 2017 alone, nearly triple the number that was seen during the most litigious year of the Obama administration. On the other side of the aisle, Republican attorneys general now act as little more than cheerleaders for favored administration policies, often fawning over actions taken by agencies they once viciously opposed. Should the party in control of the White House change, we can expect these roles to again reverse.
And so state attorneys general have now assumed a crucial role in American politics, acting in a decidedly partisan and policy forward role, in contrast to their more traditional role as the top legal officer of a state. Going forward, the role of attorneys general in pushing partisan policy will likely continue to grow, as lawsuits both successful and unsuccessful continue to stack up. Many attorneys general have also used this rise in the prominence of their position to elevate themselves to higher political offices; EPA Administrator Pruitt for example served as the attorney general of Oklahoma prior to his appointment to the EPA. In the hyper-partisan environment currently infecting both the states and federal government, the power of the state attorney general as a policy foil will only continue to grow, and such state vs. federal lawsuits will continue to be a mainstay of American politics.
