State AGs have a complex relationship with the federal government, including the President, the U.S. Department of Justice, local U.S. Attorneys, and other federal agencies. Away from the headlines, in most cases, attorneys general cooperate with federal agencies to carry out federal policy, but in some cases and in some states, attorneys general attempt to either challenge or prompt federal action. 

The differing strains of this relationship do not necessarily divide on the usual partisan axis. Over the years, the relationship has been characterized by cooperation, disinterest, preemption, or outright hostility, some times even within the same Administration.  

Conflict with the federal government is nothing new. The first reading is from 1984 in which Maine and others sued the EPA. After bruising battles over preemption in the George W. Bush administration, Obama took a different tack and issued an executive order cutting back on preemption. The Trump administration tried again to preempt state efforts, and we look at student loans.

Although not as sexy as conflict, the readings consider a couple of examples of state-federal cooperation (pro tip: all AGs, regardless of party, are opposed to robocalls).

In the Nolette website, look at the cases brought against the President, and ask who filed it; what other states joined; specifically, where was it filed; what was the claim; and what was the outcome. In the readings on AGs suing Obama, Trump, and Biden, ask yourself whether you think the suits were appropriate exercises of state AG authority regardless of whether you agree with the merits of the lawsuits. We then look briefly at the notion of the peripatetic solicitor general and ask whether that raises any issues. The final reading is an amicus brief bemoaning forum shopping in these types of cases.