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 now.
Thanks for being here.
Thanks for having me.
So this makes 15 lawsuits by our account 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 to 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 to prevent
something like job cuts from happening.
In other cases, you're asking 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 do 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 disbursement of some of these 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.
We're going to 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're requesting is that he be blocked from intervening and
stopping the laws from being complied with.
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
Court.
There's going to be appeals in a lot of these cases.
And when they are themselves refusing to take action rather than getting an order blocking
action that can complicate things, but in each of these cases, I think it's going to
depend on the facts and how things play out.
So these cases are going to keep moving through the court system.
And I think we'll be getting results over 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 blocked 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 plain of states.
So because Wisconsin was involved were 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 the parties to this case, that 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 by Republican presidents.
I'm talking about cases filed generally, not just the AGs 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, 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, judges
are rather appointed by both parties have seen that.
So the majority of the states that have signed on to these lawsuits are blue states or in
Wisconsin's case, a purple state with a, you know, 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 on?
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.
And 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's 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's 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 asked 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.
All right.
Attorney General Josh Call.
Thanks for your time today.
Thanks for having me.