State attorneys general tell Congress they are fighting administration'lawlessness' in court

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., opened a joint Senate-House "spotlight" hearing on June 14, 2025, by saying state attorneys general are serving as a frontline defense against what they described as an administration that is exceeding constitutional limits.

"Our country is currently facing several catastrophic challenges that the Trump administration is ignoring or exacerbating," Durbin said as he introduced the four principal witnesses. "In this disturbing environment, many Americans have no greater ally than their state's attorneys general."

The four primary witnessesIllinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkintestified that their offices have filed dozens of lawsuits in the past months to block or unwind executive actions they say exceed presidential authority and harm residents.

"Today I want to speak clearly and factually about three specific areas where the Trump administration's actions have had a deeply harmful impact," Raoul said, listing tariffs, education-funding cuts and rollbacks of diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Why it matters: The attorneys general portrayed their litigation as efforts to preserve separation of powers, protect federally appropriated funding and defend civil liberties. They told lawmakers their suits are not partisan fights but legal steps to enforce statutes, constitutional limits and court precedent.

Most important facts

- Litigation and injunctions: Attorneys general said states have filed hundreds of suits against the administration, winning multiple preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders. Raoul and other witnesses cited litigation that blocked planned cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, a court order forcing the administration to restore certain federal health grants and a coalition challenge to federal directives tying emergency funding to local immigration cooperation.

- Birthright citizenship: Several of the attorneys general are leading or participating in a high-profile challenge to an executive order the administration issued on birthright citizenship. New Jersey's Platkin described arguing at the U.S. Supreme Court to defend the Fourteenth Amendmentand said the administration's position treats citizenship as dependent on whether a state's attorney general joins a lawsuit.

- Immigration enforcement and due process claims: Witnesses described enforcement activities in many jurisdictions that they said undermined due process and chilled cooperation with local law enforcement. They pointed to incidents in which federal agents wore masks or did not identify themselves, and to cases where people who had shown up for immigration hearings were detained.

- Public-safety funding and coordination: Attorneys general said the administration's threats to withhold transportation, FEMA and other federal funds tied to immigration cooperation have disrupted public-safety planning and harmed victim-witness cooperation. New Jersey's Platkin said the administration's cuts and reduced federal-local coordination have made communities less safe.

Supporting details and examples

- NIH funding and research: Campbell and other witnesses described immediate, concrete harms from abrupt NIH funding actions: canceled grant meetings, disrupted clinical trials that cannot simply be restarted if participants miss protocol steps, layoffs of research staff, canceled internships and paused capital projects. Campbell said judges in two separate rulings (referred to in testimony as "NIH 1" and "NIH 2") issued injunctions restoring or protecting funding and sharply criticized the administration's conduct.

- Tariffs and trade: Raoul told the panel that the administration relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs, a use of the law that two courts had found unlawful, and that those tariffs harm small businesses and state economies.

- Immigration encounters and masked agents: Multiple lawmakers and witnesses described instances in which federal agents detained people who had come for immigration appointments, sometimes while not identifying themselves or wearing masks; witnesses said some detained people later were transferred across states. Ellison and Campbell said such practices undermine due process and community trust and said states have pursued legal remedies and guidance for residents and local officials.

- Public-safety coordination: Platkin and other AGs said cuts to grants for domestic-violence services, gun-violence prevention, license-plate readers and other programs have immediately affected local law enforcement capabilities. Platkin described an instance in which the victim of an attempted murder was detained by ICE, which hindered local prosecution and victim cooperation.

- Other litigation: Ellison said states have sued over federal threats to penalize institutions that provide gender-affirming care, executive orders affecting public education and actions purporting to ban transgender students from school sports.

Quotes from witnesses

- "We have been engaging in legal battles of our lives over the last five months," Raoul said. "When constitutional guarantees are ignored, all Americans are at risk."

- "We will not waver in fighting back against the administration when it violates the law and harms our residents," Campbell said.

- "We're faced with a question of whether this oldest democracy in the world is durable enough to withstand an overreaching executive," Ellison told the panel.

Courtroom and legislative context

Witnesses repeatedly pointed to constitutional text and court precedents in explaining why they view the administration's actions as unlawful: references during testimony included the Fourteenth Amendment, Marbury v. Madison and the 1952 steel-seizure decision cited as the limitation on unilateral executive power. Several senators emphasized that many of the injunctions and preliminary rulings in these cases have come from judges appointed by presidents of both parties.

Questions from lawmakers and themes raised

Lawmakers from both chambers asked about practical consequences for public safety, education, clinical research, and state-federal cooperation. Several senators and representatives praised the AGs' work, saying state litigators are often the only parties able to secure court review when congressional standing doctrines limit direct suits by members of Congress.

What the AGs asked of Congress

Witnesses and lawmakers urged Congress to uphold funding and to consider statutory and oversight responses to federal executive actions. Several senators asked about legislative options to bar federal agents from masking to avoid identification during domestic operations; AGs said they had found no existing statutory prohibition and supported legislation requiring identification except for narrowly defined exceptions.

Ending

The hearing left the central picture intact: state attorneys general said they have mobilized substantial multi-state litigation and other tools to block and roll back administration actions that they say exceed the president's constitutional authority or violate federal law. The AGs told members they will continue to litigate and to press courts to enforce injunctions while also urging Congress to clarify statutory boundaries and preserve funding for the programs they said are at immediate risk.

Votes and formal outcomes: none recorded at the hearing.