President Donald Trump has had one of the most active first months in office of any U.S. president. Since Trump’s inauguration, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong has been active in challenging the executive branch’s actions.
Suit to stop Elon Musk’s executive power
Fourteen states, including Connecticut, filed a lawsuit on Thursday, Feb. 13, challenging the power Trump delegated to Elon Musk as an unelected official in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency.
“There is no greater threat to democracy than the accumulation of state power in the hands of a single, unelected individual,” the lawsuit stated. “Although our constitutional system was designed to prevent the abuses of an 18th century monarch, the instruments of unchecked power are no less dangerous in the hands of a 21st century tech baron.”
The lawsuit claims that Trump violated the Appointments Clause by appointing Musk to a government position without the consent of the Senate and giving power to a new government department that Congress had not officially sanctioned.
The suit also argues that the Temporary Organization Statute, which allows the president to establish short-term organizations for specific projects or studies, “does not amount to a carte blanche grant of authority to the Executive to create new federal agencies from whole cloth.”
“Oblivious to the threat this poses to the nation, President Trump has delegated virtually unchecked authority to Mr. Musk without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities,” the lawsuit said. “As a result, he has transformed a minor position that was formerly responsible for managing government websites into a designated agent of chaos without limitation and in violation of the separation of powers.”
Statement on vice president’s judicial review comments
Tong was among 17 state attorneys general who signed a statement responding to Vice President JD Vance’s comment on judicial power.
On Sunday, Feb. 9, Vance posted on X, formerly Twitter, responding to the legal actions taken to stop Trump’s executive orders.
“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” Vance said.
On Friday, Feb. 14, state attorneys general released a statement criticizing that sentiment.
“The Vice President’s statement is as wrong as it is reckless. As chief law enforcement officers representing the people of 17 states, we unequivocally reject the Vice President’s attempt to spread this dangerous lie,” the statement said.
The statement cited Marbury v. Madison, a court case from 1803 that established judicial review as a way for judges to keep the executive branch in check.
“Americans understand the principle of checks and balances. The judiciary is a check on unlawful action by the executive and legislative branches of government. Generals, prosecutors, and all public officials are subject to checks and balances. No one is above the law,” the statement said.
The statement said the attorneys general would continue to monitor executive actions and pursue legal avenues to block those they consider unconstitutional as they already have throughout the first month of Trump’s presidency.
“Judges granted our motions and issued restraining orders to protect the American people, democracy and the rule of law. That is and has always been their job. That job is the very core of our legal system. And in this critical moment, we will stand our ground to defend it.”
Amicus brief for transgender military members
A coalition of 20 state attorneys general filed a brief to support a lawsuit against an executive order banning transgender people from military service.
The executive order signed on Monday, Jan. 27, stated that the military has “been afflicted with radical gender ideology,” that conflicts with its longstanding policies.
“Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service,” the order said.
The order was challenged by a lawsuit filed by activist groups and transgender veterans within a day of its release. On Friday, Feb. 14, Connecticut was one of 20 attorneys general that signed an amicus brief in support of a preliminary injunction on the executive order.
The brief argued that the National Guard is under state jurisdiction unless called into federal service and supports state law enforcement and first responders, so the president cannot change its form without approval from the state’s governor.
The brief also explained how this order could hurt recruitment and existing structures in the National Guard.
“The lost potential for new personnel, not to mention the loss of personnel in whom training and money have been invested, will impede the National Guard’s ability to respond to natural disasters and perform its other functions at a time when a robust Guard is more necessary than ever,” the brief said.
The brief also made the argument that the executive order “constitutes a blatantly discriminatory policy” that will lead to greater harm to all citizens, whether or not they are transgender. According to the brief, the order would harm states “by limiting National Guard readiness and creating unequal opportunities at public institutions” and harm veterans as well as active service members and potential service members.
“Indeed, the executive order itself repeats a number of incendiary, disparaging claims about transgender people, including that being transgender is somehow inconsistent with ‘an honorable, truthful and disciplined lifestyle’ or the ‘humility and selflessness required of a service member,’” the brief said. “But the experiences of the named Plaintiffs who have longstanding, distinguished service—even during their transitions—plainly belie those claims, as do the positions of the major medical organizations that have weighed in on the issue.”
The brief’s final argument is that the executive order undermines the idea that the military is an “inclusive institution that reflects our nation’s population.”
“The executive order singles out transgender individuals for renewed exclusion, sending a message that threatens to slow progress and that will be heard and felt throughout our communities,” the brief said. “Indeed, it seems that is precisely the point.”