State Attorneys General (AGs) are increasingly poised to sue over federal crime policies, particularly when they perceive those policies as infringing on state sovereignty, conflicting with state laws, or exceeding federal authority. This trend reflects ongoing tensions between state and federal governments about the scope and enforcement of criminal law, immigration, gun control, and other areas where federal policies directly impact state jurisdictions.
One major area of conflict involves federal policies that appear to override or undermine state laws. For example, a coalition of 14 states recently filed a lawsuit challenging a federal policy on the redistribution of firearms equipped with “firearm microstamping technology” (FRT). These states argue that the federal policy disregards their own laws prohibiting such firearms, forcing them to deal with increased law enforcement and healthcare costs due to the anticipated rise in FRT use in criminal incidents. The states contend that the federal policy violates statutory limits and administrative law, seeking to block its implementation entirely. This case highlights how states push back when federal crime policies threaten to disrupt their regulatory frameworks and impose fiscal burdens on them.
Immigration enforcement is another flashpoint. Some states have enacted laws mirroring federal immigration statutes, aiming to criminalize illegal immigration at the state level. In Oklahoma, for instance, the Attorney General has defended a state law that makes illegal immigration a state crime, arguing that federal lawbreakers lack standing to challenge such laws. This legal battle is part of a broader movement among states to assert their authority in immigration enforcement, sometimes in coordination with or in opposition to federal policies. The question of whether states can enforce laws complementing federal immigration statutes is expected to reach the Supreme Court, indicating the high stakes involved.
Beyond firearms and immigration, state AGs are also challenging federal overreach in other criminal justice areas. For example, California’s Attorney General led a multistate coalition suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture over demands for sensitive SNAP (food assistance) data, arguing that the federal government’s use of this data for immigration enforcement violates privacy and legal protections. Similarly, California challenged the Trump Administration’s use of federalized National Guard troops for civilian law enforcement, citing violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military involvement in domestic policing. The court sided with the state, issuing an injunction against such federal actions.
These lawsuits reflect a broader pattern of state AGs actively using litigation to check federal crime policies they view as unlawful or harmful to their residents. They argue that federal policies sometimes exceed statutory authority
