North Carolina Bill Sparks Constitutional Debate Over State Attorney General Powers
A contentious bill advancing in the North Carolina legislature is poised to ignite a national debate regarding the authority of state attorneys general and the separation of powers between state and federal governments. Senate Bill 58 (SB 58), if enacted, would significantly restrict the North Carolina Attorney General’s ability to challenge presidential executive orders through legal action, potentially establishing a precedent for other states seeking to curb the influence of politically opposed state legal officers.
The proposed legislation specifically targets the Attorney General’s participation in lawsuits aimed at invalidating executive orders issued by the President of the United States. The bill’s language explicitly prohibits the Attorney General from acting as a party, amicus, or any other participant in legal proceedings, whether in state or federal court, if the action seeks to invalidate a presidential executive order. Further, it restricts the Attorney General from advancing arguments that would invalidate statutes enacted by the General Assembly.
The bill’s passage through the state Senate along party lines, with Republicans largely in favor, signals a deep partisan divide on the issue. The bill now moves to the House of Representatives, where the GOP’s once veto-proof majority has been reduced, raising the stakes for its ultimate fate.
The impetus for the bill appears to stem from concerns that Attorney General Jeff Jackson, a Democrat who assumed office in January, has engaged in politically motivated lawsuits against the federal government. Jackson, a former Congressman, has already joined several suits challenging federal policies, prompting criticism from Republicans who believe he should prioritize the state’s interests over partisan agendas.
Supporters of the bill argue that Jackson’s actions represent a misuse of the Attorney General’s office, diverting resources away from core responsibilities such as combating violent crime and illegal immigration. They contend that the Attorney General should not use taxpayer funds to pursue legal challenges that align with a partisan agenda, especially when those challenges contradict the will of the state’s voters, who supported former President Trump in past elections.
In response, Jackson’s office has defended his actions, asserting that his duty is to protect the interests of North Carolina and its citizens, regardless of political affiliations. His spokesperson, Ben Conroy, emphasized the Attorney General’s role as a "nonpartisan shield" for the people of the state. Conroy highlighted that Jackson has filed lawsuits to safeguard billions of dollars in funding for crucial programs, including those benefiting western North Carolina, public universities, and rural job creation. Further, he noted that judges have consistently agreed that the federal government’s actions in these cases were potentially unlawful or unconstitutional.
Opponents of the bill, including Democratic lawmakers, argue that it undermines the independence of the Attorney General’s office and restricts the ability of the state’s top legal officer to defend the interests of North Carolina. They contend that the Attorney General should have the power to challenge federal actions that harm the state’s residents, especially when it comes to securing funding for essential services such as healthcare, education, and disaster relief.
The bill’s sponsor, Senator Tim Moffitt, has characterized it as a "housekeeping" measure designed to address the broader issue of attorneys general using the courts to shape public policy. However, critics view it as a direct attempt to silence a political opponent and limit the Attorney General’s ability to hold the federal government accountable.
The potential for Democratic Governor Josh Stein to veto the bill adds another layer of complexity. While Stein has not publicly commented on the legislation, it is widely anticipated that he would reject it. However, if House Republicans can secure the support of even one Democrat, they could override the governor’s veto and enact the bill into law. This makes the positions of moderate Democrats in the House particularly important.
The John Locke Foundation, a libertarian-leaning think tank, has expressed support for the bill, arguing that the Attorney General’s core role is defending North Carolina from in-state scams and crime. The organization questions the justification for using taxpayer resources to align with other state attorneys general in lawsuits against the federal government. The think tank also posits that Jackson is using the office to bolster his resume for future political endeavors.
The situation in North Carolina is unique in that the state has a Democratic Attorney General and Governor, while the legislature is controlled by the Republican Party. This divided government creates a dynamic where partisan tensions are heightened, and the potential for conflict between the executive and legislative branches is significant. Other states with similar governmental setups, such as Arizona and Wisconsin, have not yet pursued similar legislation, making North Carolina a potential bellwether for future battles over state attorney general powers.
The outcome of this legislative battle in North Carolina will have significant implications for the balance of power between state and federal governments, as well as the independence of state attorneys general. It may also influence other states to consider similar measures to curb the authority of politically opposed legal officers. The bill raises fundamental questions about the role of the Attorney General, the separation of powers, and the ability of states to challenge federal policies.
