State attorneys general (AGs) sued the federal government a record 138 times during the first Trump administration and are on pace to reach a new high this second term. Seven months into the current administration, state AGs are utilizing these lawsuits to – among other things – mitigate the impact of federal policies on immigrant communities.

Over the last few decades, state AG offices litigated against the federal government more frequently, often in coalition with other states, to challenge perceived federal overreach, protect state residents’ rights, or influence national policy. Lawsuits filed in coalition with other state AGs may help strengthen credibility, broaden the ruling’s impact, and promote resource sharing. During the first Trump administration, the volume of multistate AG litigation against the federal government reached a new high — nearly double the figure across both terms of Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush.  

State AGs are proving just as eager to use litigation to challenge federal policy during Trump’s second term as over 300 lawsuits were filed against the administration through July, with close to 40 of these filed by state AGs.  State AGs coordinated many of these efforts, with 33 lawsuits filed by coalitions of 10 or more state AGs – and 14 of these involving at least 20 state AGs.

At least seven of these lawsuits directly target policies related to immigration — the first multistate coalition lawsuit of the second Trump administration opposed the executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship. Below, we explore ongoing efforts of state AGs to shape federal immigration policies.

Data Sharing and Privacy

The Trump administration has sought access to various federal, state, and local databases to support their mass deportation agenda, eroding established norms and raising legal concerns around data privacy. State AGs challenged two of these instances, suing the administration over efforts to share sensitive data on Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients for immigration enforcement purposes.

In July, a group of 20 state AGs challenged the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) sharing of confidential, individual beneficiary Medicaid data with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The states’ lawsuit alleges the administration’s unlawful actions will lead to fear and confusion, resulting in non-citizens disenrolling or refusing to enroll in Emergency Medicaid, a federal reimbursement program for emergency-only medical care extended to all people in the U.S. regardless of immigration status.  

Later that same month, 21 state AGs sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for coercing states to hand over personal information on millions of SNAP beneficiaries by threatening to withhold SNAP administrative funding from states until they comply. While undocumented immigrants are ineligible for SNAP, their information may be included in SNAP datasets through other household members who are eligible. The AGs coalition argued that this data sharing request violates several federal and state privacy laws.

Conditional Federal Funding

This spring, state AGs responded to multiple attempts by Trump officials to withhold federal funds in order to force state compliance with federal immigration policy priorities. In March, DHS updated terms for their grants, including Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) awards, to compel states to support federal immigration enforcement efforts. A month later, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued notices threatening to withdraw transportation funding from states and localities that do not cooperate on federal immigration enforcement efforts.

A coalition of 19 state AGs responded with separate lawsuits against these two efforts to place immigration policy conditions on grants, including critical disaster relief and transportation funds, that Congress already allocated to states. If these new conditions take effect, states that do not comply risk losing hundreds of millions in DHS and DOT funding for projects that range from emergency management and disaster recovery to infrastructure and transportation safety improvements.

Access to Federal Benefits

State AGs are also active in challenging federal efforts to roll back immigrants’ access to certain federal resources. In July, a 21-state coalition sued HHS over a new rule that adds significant barriers to eligibility for health care coverage via the Affordable Care Act (ACA), while raising costs for those still covered. These changes are expected to lead to hundreds of dollars of new coverage costs for nearly 23 million and may result in 1.8 million people losing coverage completely by 2026, impacting some lawfully present immigrants who are eligible for coverage through the ACA marketplace.

Days later, 20 state AGs announced joint litigation opposing four federal agencies’ reinterpretations of what constitutes as a federal public benefit. These changes may result in restricted access for some immigrant populations who currently qualify for several federally funded programs including community health centers, Head Start, adult education, and mental health services.

Together, these federal lawsuits reflect state AGs’ willingness to work in coalitions to defend against federal overreach and protect the rights of immigrants and other vulnerable populations. As the second Trump administration continues to test constitutional and legal boundaries, state AG litigation will likely continue to serve as a check on federal policy.