Healey to Campbell: Welcome to my world. (via Focus Springfield)

As attorney general of Massachusetts, Maura Healey essentially ran point for the commonwealth’s legal opposition to Donald Trump. Two years into her first AG term, his assumption of office reoriented Healey’s office toward defending Massachusetts from Trump’s onslaughts. That role concluded for Healey when now-former President Joe Biden took office.

Now Healey is governor, a very different role than attorney general, and Trump has returned. Her successor in the AG’s office is facing a landscape not unlike the one Healey did—and Attorney General Andrea Campbell has been busy. The flurry of lawsuits Campbell has led or joined already echo the legally frenetic moments during the first Trump go-round.

The activity continued into today. Campbell and other Democratic AGs filed an amicus, or nonparty, brief in the case the National Treasury Employees Union filed to stop the demolition of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

“The CFPB serves as a beacon for consumer protection and economic justice, working to lower costs, alleviate student debt, and more. They have been an important partner to my office as we pursue consumer protection cases on behalf of Massachusetts residents,” Campbell said in a statement Thursday morning.

Congress created the agency in the aftermath of the 2008 Great Recession at the urging of now-US Senator Elizabeth Warren, who also set it up.

A common theme of the suits Campbell has joined is opposition to unconstitutional actions Trump and/or his ostensible puppet master Elon Musk have undertaken. The earliest suit opposed an attempt to violate 127 years of Supreme Court precedent on citizenship. More recent cases have sought to stop illegal withholding of funds and even challenge the existence of Musk’s executive fiefdom: the US DOGE service.

Eight suits against Trump are before federal judges in Massachusetts. Among these are two of the many state attorneys general, including Campbell, have filed.

Some of the rooms where the Trump TROs have happened have been in Boston at the Moakley courthouse. (WMP&I)

One of those two in Massachusetts is a challenge to Trump’s executive order that purports to end birthright citizenship. Campbell and fellow attorneys general filed this the day after Trump returned. Like other challenges to the EO, a judge has stayed its effects. The EO would have barred citizenship from anybody who lacked at least one citizen parent or legal permanent resident parent.

No court has let the EO go into effect, largely because it contravenes the plain text of the US Constitution. The 14^th Amendment to the Constitution grants citizenship to anyone born under the jurisdiction of the United States. The only exceptions are the children of diplomats or invading armies. Native Americans had been excluded, but that exception became extinct when Congress extended citizenship to them in 1924.

“The President and his allies made clear long before he was sworn in that they would pursue this illegal action, and our coalition was prepared to challenge it as soon as President Trump fulfilled this unconstitutional campaign promise on Inauguration Day,” Campbell said in a February 13 statement after the court granted the states a preliminary injunction.

“We immediately stood up for our Constitution, for the rule of law, and for American children across the country who would have been deprived of their constitutional rights – and today we delivered for them,” she continued. “This is not yet over, and we will continue to fight every single step of the way until President Trump is permanently prevented from trampling on the Fourteenth Amendment rights of all Americans.”

The other case in Massachusetts challenges the indirect cost rate Trump’s National Institutes of Health imposed. The commonwealth and its fellow states also won a temporary restraining order in that case. Private parties filed their own NIH cases in Massachusetts, too. The courts consolidated those with the one the states filed.

Trump tried futzing with the indirect cost rate last time, too, but did not get too far. The NIH justified the change by arguing it would put the money back into research, but this is facile. The indirect cost rate pays for staff and overhead that support the research. These costs factor into the research institutions’ overall budget. Were it reduced suddenly and dramatically, countless hospitals and universities would likely close or downsize.

Congress recoiled at the last attempt. It added language to appropriations bills—including the one now in effect—to bar the change. That forms the crux of the current challenge, in addition to other procedural claims.

“The Court’s swift action provides immediate relief to research and public health institutions throughout the Commonwealth,” said Campbell said in a statement on February 10. “This is an initial victory for every person and family counting on the life saving science funded by federal grants. I will not stop fighting for the people of Massachusetts, for their health care, and for the rule of law.”

Campbell campaigning for AG in 2022 in Boston. Little did she know she’d be litigating a mile in her predecessor’s shoes. (WMP&I)

Compliance with the order remains unclear. A judge is considering a broader injunction and on Friday extended the current bar from changing the rate.

Outside Massachusetts, Campbell has signed onto cases in Rhode Island, New York and Washington, D.C.

The Rhode Island litigation was among the suits that sought to stop the Office of Management & Budget’s freeze across government. The memo that began the case was rescinded. Whether due to incompetence or malice, funds have been slow to return. Litigation in that case is ongoing.

Not every case has completely borne fruit yet, though. Campbell joined a case filed in New York that would bar Musk’s minions from accessing sensitive Treasury Department data. The states secured a temporary restraining order. However, Muskovites were still able to access the Treasury’s payment system, albeit under restricted conditions.

The states also filed a case in Washington that could become a DOGE-buster. It is not the only case of its kind. However, it aims to strike at the very heart of Musk’s seizure of power. In essence, the states argue that Musk is exercising power well beyond that of an advisor—the Department of Justice told the judge that is all he is—in violation of the Constitution’s Appointments clause. In other words, for Musk to exercise the power he has, he must be doing it from a Congressionally-created position with appointment from Trump, likely with Senate confirmation.

Judge Chutkan declined to roughly neuter DOGE this week, but she invited the states to bring a more delicate surgical tool to the next examination of Musk’s creature. (via Wikipedia)

US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan declined to issue a temporary restraining order. Yet, in her decision, she practically begged the states to continue their pursuit. With more information or briefing, the states could secure a preliminary injunction. That requires a lower threshold and would come after discovery, when more details would be available.

Healey had said she had sued Trump nearly 100 times over the course of his previous run. (The AG’s office did not respond to a request for comment on the volume or venue of Healey’s suits against Trump.) Given the magnitude of lawlessness, it is not an outlandish figure. However, Campbell could be on course to hit that number easily.

The marquee legal battles early in Trump’s last reign were things like the Muslim ban. While racist and bigoted—and for that reason challenged as unconstitutional—they involved the exercise of powers that belong to the executive. Trump’s more recent efforts are frontal attacks on the Constitution and separation of powers. These are certain to provide grounds for state attorneys general to litigate.

Campbell’s role in countering Trump may not stop at the courthouse doors. Last week, her office issued guidance to businesses on diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. Trump signed an EO purporting to declare such programs illegal—a novel position given the Americans with Disabilities Act. Aspiring crown counsel and nominal US Attorney General Pam Bondi has said she will harass private businesses that have workforces that reflect the United States.

“The President’s Order is an attempt to bully employers into eliminating lawful policies that we know reduce complaints of illegal discrimination, increase a company’s bottom line, and improve workforce culture and consumer experience,” Campbell said in a statement.

In Massachusetts at least, Campbell’s push had support. Her office’s release included statements of support from Massachusetts business and community leaders.

Among them was the Brooke Thomson, the president and CEO of the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the premier business lobby in the commonwealth.

“Companies that prioritize a culture of diversity and equity are more dynamic, competitive, innovative and resilient. AIM believes that business is a positive force for change, and we recommit ourselves to an inclusive vision of economic growth in which every business and every individual in Massachusetts shares in the economic prosperity of the commonwealth,” she said.