Governor Tony Evers announced this
week Wisconsin has joined another
multi-state lawsuit against the
Trump administration, this time
suing the Department of
Transportation over its decision to
block the release of $60 million in
federal funds that would support
electric vehicle infrastructure
around the state.
Behind each lawsuit is Wisconsin's
Democratic Attorney General Josh
Call, who joins us Thanks for being
here.
Thanks for having me.
So this makes 15 lawsuits by our
count in which the state is suing
the federal government over issues
like job cuts, policy changes,
and federal funding the Trump
administration won't release as in
this case.
Why is it that the state attorneys
general are the ones taking the lead
when it comes to battling some of
these executive orders out of the
Trump Administration?
Well, the basic reason is that a lot
of what the Trump administration is
doing is flouting the law, and
that means going to court and
getting accountability.
I look at two basic things in
deciding whether Wisconsin should
get involved in a multi-state suit.
One is, is there a policy that's
harmful to Wisconsinites?
So cutting over $60 million in
funds that should be coming to
Wisconsin and undermining our clean
energy efforts, which is bad for the
environment and also bad for jobs in
Wisconsin? That's harmful for
Wisconsinites. And then secondly...
Is there a sound legal basis for
challenging the policy?
And here, this is a law that was
passed by Congress and signed into
law by the president at the time,
the bipartisan infrastructure law.
And Donald Trump doesn't get to
overrule that by fiat.
That's not how our constitutional
republic works.
So I believe we have a sound, legal
basis for challenging this.
And so in this case, as well as the
others, those two factors are met.
And so we've gone to court to seek
relief on behalf of the people of
the state.
In some of these cases, you're
asking a federal court to block an
executive order, prevent something
like job cuts from happening.
In other cases, you're for them
to do something as in release funds.
It seems like it's a lot easier to
get an injunctive order to stop
something than it is to force them
to something in which they can
appeal that to the Supreme Court
potentially.
Generally speaking, injunctions are
about stopping things from
happening. But what's happened with
some of these fund disbursement
cases is that the administration has
actually put policies in place
themselves to stop what is
already in the works.
So when it comes to the
disbursements of some of the funds,
there are processes in place,
there's a lot of work and planning
that's been done, and the Trump
administration has come in and
essentially told appointees to
stop following the law and not do
what you're required to do under the
law.
Exercise our own policy judgment,
and that's, again, that's just not
how our system of government works.
If we had a king who could act
by fiat, that's how it would work,
but we have a system of laws, and
the president's duty under the
Constitution is to faithfully
execute those laws.
So what we're getting, what we are
requesting is that he be blocked
from intervening and stopping the
laws from being complied with.
But when it comes to him being
forced to, the administration
actually releasing the funds, it
could be a much longer road if he
appeals multiple times all the way
to the U.S. Supreme
Well, I think there are going to be
appeals in a lot of these cases.
And, you know, when they are
themselves refusing to take action
rather than getting an order of
blocking action, that can complicate
things.
But in each of these case, I thing
it's going to depend on the facts
and how things play out.
So these cases are going keep moving
through the court system.
And I think we'll be getting results
over, you now, a period of several
months, if not years.
So victory in any of these cases
applies to the entire United States,
so why is it important for Wisconsin
specifically to be involved?
Well, actually, it doesn't
necessarily apply nationwide.
It depends on the case.
In some of these cases, we seek
nationwide injunction, so orders
that block policies across
the country.
But in some cases, either we
only seek relief in the particular
states involved,
or the judge decides to only issue
relief in those states.
So for example, in the case
involving the freeze on federal
funding, which would have caused
catastrophic effects nationwide if
it had gone into effect.
Right now, the order in place in
that case only applies in the
plaintiff's states.
So because Wisconsin was involved,
we're one of the states that
benefits.
Now, in addition to that, it's also
important that Wisconsin's
perspective is heard in these cases.
If we are not one of parties to
this case, the Wisconsin perspective
doesn't get heard by the court.
Most of these cases are being filed
in federal courts in the East Coast
in Maryland, New York, Massachusetts
Are there more favorable judges
there or would you consider trying
to file one of these in Wisconsin?
We make an assessment in each case,
and we work collaboratively with AGs
around the country, but our
assessment is based on where we
think that it makes the most sense
to file in a given case.
There are a variety of factors that
can go into that, but one of the
things I think is really notable
that we've seen so far throughout
the Trump administration is some
cases that have been heard have been
before judges appointed by
Democratic presidents, but a number
of cases have been in front of
judges appointed Republican
presidents, And I'm talking about
cases filed generally, not just the
AG's cases.
And both Democratic and Republican
appointees have been
blocking a number of actions of the
Trump administration, because what
they're doing in so many of these
cases is so clearly flouting
the law. And I will add, the Trump
Administration isn't hiding that.
They're being very clear that they
are blocking the expenditure of
congressionally appropriated funds,
for example.
They've suggested that they may
be willing to defy court orders.
So what we're doing here is
protecting the constitutional order,
and Democrats, And judges, rather,
appointed by both parties have seen
that.
So the majority of the states that
have signed onto these lawsuits are
blue states or in Wisconsin's
case, a purple state with Democrats
in charge of the administration.
Are there Republican AGs that are
involved in these? Do you shop this
out to red states to see if they'll
sign up?
Well, so far, these multi-state
cases against the Trump
administration have been all
Democratic AGs.
And that's disappointing because in
some of these cases, the Trump
Administration is so clearly
flouting the law or the
Constitution. I'll give you a simple
example.
One of the policy changes we've
challenged relates to birthright
citizenship.
And birthright citizenship is
literally written into the
Constitution, there's U.S.
Supreme Court precedent directly on
point, there is federal law on
point. And yet, Republican
AGs haven't been willing to join us
in fighting back against this.
And it's harmful potentially to
their states. As we talked about,
some of these orders only apply in
the states that are involved.
So some states may be left without
funds because their AGs didn't get
involved. So it's my hope that we
will see Republicans get more
engaged.
But so far, both in Congress and
in the AGs' ranks, Republicans have
been unwilling to stand up to Donald
Trump and his lawlessness.
And it is critical for the Republic
that they get involved in this
effort to protect our Constitution
and protect the rule of law.
And we've seen Donald Trump try to
influence federal judges in the
past, threatening impeachment or
questioning their independence.
Does that matter once you're in the
courtroom arguing the case?
Well, I think it doesn't matter from
the standpoint of our judge is going
to be independent and do the right
thing. I think we've seen them doing
that. They've been applying the law.
And that's why you see the
judiciary, unlike Congress, for
example, where judges
appointed by Republicans as well as
judges appointed by Democrats have
pushed back.
But where it does matter is that,
you know, our constitutional system
relies on people respecting
the fact that we have co-equal
branches and that there is
separation of powers.
This is something our founders
focused on in setting up
the United States of America,
having divided power, so
that it didn't become too
concentrated in one hand, and
that we maintained liberty and
our rights.
What Donald Trump is trying to do is
to overrun that and to concentrate
power in his own hands.
Some of the most eloquent writings
about the importance of separation
of powers have come from
conservative justices and judges
like Antonin Scalia.
And yet...
We're not seeing folks standing up
here to push back on
the Republican side.
I hope that will change because we
all need to be involved in
protecting our Constitution.
Switching to state politics and the
budget, Republicans are taking their
first votes this week.
You asked for additional positions
in the state crime lab.
We know they stripped out a lot of
Governor Evers' language in his
budget yesterday.
What are the prospects for what
you're asking for for the Department
of Justice?
You know, I'm hopeful.
We are asking for investments that
will help make our communities in
Wisconsin safer.
We've asked for additional funding
for victim service programs around
the state because there's been a
significant decrease in federal
funding. And we've seen some
positive feedback from Republicans
on that.
We've ask for a continuation
of the work being done by the Office
of School Safety.
And again, that's received
bipartisan support.
And the crime labs are a critical
component of the criminal justice
system in this state.
And so making sure that we continue
to invest in the labs.
So that we continue to stay on the
cutting edge of technology and
continue to be able to test evidence
efficiently is important.
So of course, we don't know how the
process will play out yet.
But given that these are public
safety investments, I'm hopeful that
there will be bipartisan support for
what we've asked for.
Alright, Attorney General Josh Call,
thanks for your time today.
Thank you very much.