By Char­lotte Har­vey
UConn Jour­nal­ism 

Con­necti­cut and oth­er Demo­c­ra­t­ic-led states filed an extra­or­di­nary num­ber of law­suits against the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment in 2025, chal­leng­ing the administration’s actions and fight­ing for a vari­ety of caus­es from clean air and drink­ing water to trans­gen­der rights to oppos­ing the weaponiza­tion of the Depart­ment of Jus­tice. 

As of Dec. 1, 2025, Attor­ney Gen­er­al William Tong joined 39 law­suits against the fed­er­al admin­is­tra­tion in the first nine months of Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump’s sec­ond term — a pace of legal chal­lenges that Tong said was unprece­dent­ed.  

Tong said that the admin­is­tra­tion is try­ing to intim­i­date and prompt antic­i­pa­to­ry com­pli­ance among the states, and that the law­suits are nec­es­sary to pro­tect Con­necti­cut res­i­dents and counter pow­er grabs by the exec­u­tive branch. 

“We didn’t set out to say, ‘We’re going to sue him every day so we can get up to 35 by Octo­ber,’” Tong said in an inter­view. “We are com­pelled to sue because there have been at least 35 — but many more — offens­es to the Con­sti­tu­tion, to our rule of law and the guardrails. All of these things have been so threat­ened in such a pro­found way that we’ve had to act.”

The law­suits by Con­necti­cut and oth­er states are part of a bat­tle over fed­er­al­ism and polit­i­cal pow­er, chal­leng­ing the abil­i­ty of the exec­u­tive branch to change laws and fund­ing deci­sions made by Con­gress and dis­put­ing the reach of the fed­er­al government’s author­i­ty over states and their res­i­dents.  

The law­suits run the gamut through cur­rent polit­i­cal bat­tles includ­ing pub­lic health, the envi­ron­ment, immi­gra­tion, diver­si­ty pro­grams, trans­gen­der rights and more.  

 The first law­suit chal­lenged the president’s exec­u­tive order elim­i­nat­ing birthright cit­i­zen­ship, signed on Trump’s first day in office. Oth­er law­suits have chal­lenged the dis­man­tling of the Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion or the tar­iffs on for­eign goods levied by the pres­i­dent. A great por­tion of the cas­es con­cern the with­hold­ing of funds already allo­cat­ed to states or chang­ing the con­di­tions under which states can receive that fund­ing. 

To Tong and oth­er coali­tion mem­bers, these law­suits rep­re­sent a response to a gov­ern­ment vio­lat­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion and the prin­ci­ples of fed­er­al­ism and the rule of law.  At the heart of the law­suits is the fight for the rights and sov­er­eign­ty of the state of Con­necti­cut against fed­er­al over­reach, as well as the sep­a­ra­tion of pow­ers.

“Fed­er­al­ism is the essen­tial prin­ci­ple of our coun­try,” Tong said. “It’s kind of where it all starts.” 

In the law­suits over fed­er­al fund­ing, Tong said the exec­u­tive branch is usurp­ing the pow­ers of Con­gress by revok­ing mon­ey already appro­pri­at­ed or seek­ing to add restric­tions not includ­ed by law­mak­ers. This has includ­ed the tar­get­ing of DEI pro­grams.  

“To say, ‘we’re not going to give you mon­ey unless you do what [you’re] told with respect to inte­gra­tion or diver­si­ty, equi­ty, inclu­sion, belong­ing is just absurd,” Tong said. 

The pres­i­dent is not a monarch, and his pow­er is not absolute, Tong said.

“It’s not abstract or con­cep­tu­al that we have no kings and we don’t bend the knee,” Tong said.  

Vin­cent Can­de­lo­ra, the state legislature’s Repub­li­can House minor­i­ty leader, said he believes Tong is act­ing in good faith, but he ques­tioned whether the cas­es will be suc­cess­ful and worth the mon­ey being spent on them.  

“I think he is attempt­ing to do what’s good,” Can­de­lo­ra said. “So, while the law­suits on their face aren’t friv­o­lous and aren’t with­out mer­it, it just might come with a cost that isn’t worth the ben­e­fit.” 

Can­de­lo­ra said he believes that the attor­ney gen­er­al’s focus could be put toward oth­er, more press­ing issues. 

“I think that there are resources that are put to those fed­er­al cas­es, and at the same time, you know, he’s here to defend and rep­re­sent the state of Con­necti­cut,” Can­de­lo­ra said. “Are those resources being spread too thin? And are we los­ing track of what needs to be done at the local lev­el, at the state lev­el?”

Ben Pro­to, chair­man of the Con­necti­cut GOP, said he thinks that the nature of many of the law­suits, which often demand fund­ing pre­vi­ous­ly allo­cat­ed by Con­gress, go against the idea of fed­er­al­ism. 

“[Tong] either wants to pro­tect the state from fed­er­al over­reach, or he wants the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment pro­vid­ing things to the state,” Pro­to said.  

Pro­to said he believes Tong’s law­suits are polit­i­cal. He points to the fact that Tong’s office has not filed any of the law­suits, only joined on cas­es already brought by oth­er states.

“If he tru­ly thought that some of these things should have been brought as actions, he would bring them to the Con­necti­cut fed­er­al court on behalf of the state of Con­necti­cut and not be a taga­long,” Pro­to said. 

Rober­to Alves, the chair­man of the Con­necti­cut Demo­c­ra­t­ic par­ty, said the par­ty sup­ports Tong’s actions. 

“If we give up, they win,” Alves said. “I think the attor­ney gen­er­al is doing every­thing he has to do.” 

As pres­i­dent of the Nation­al Asso­ci­a­tion of Attor­neys Gen­er­al, Tong said he feels a spe­cial respon­si­bil­i­ty to bring these cas­es to be an exam­ple for oth­er attor­neys gen­er­al — even if Repub­li­can col­leagues in the asso­ci­a­tion don’t agree with him.  

Tong has also weighed in on oth­er cas­es against the admin­is­tra­tion by join­ing state coali­tions in fil­ing ami­cus briefs, or “friend of the court” briefs, in sup­port of cas­es brought by non­prof­it and advo­ca­cy groups.  

For exam­ple in Novem­ber, Tong joined 18 oth­er states in fil­ing an ami­cus brief in the case Make the Road New York v. Noem, a law­suit brought by the non­prof­it group over the Trump administration’s expe­dit­ed depor­ta­tion prac­tices.  

Tong’s actions are on track with oth­er states of sim­i­lar size and polit­i­cal lean­ings. Mass­a­chu­setts, for instance, joined 40 cas­es as of Oct. 29, 2025 accord­ing to the Office of the Mass­a­chu­setts Attor­ney Gen­er­al.  

Though solid­ly red states have not been part of the states’ law­suits, some “pur­ple” states that are more Repub­li­can than Con­necti­cut have joined. Ken­tucky, for instance, is a par­ty in six of the state law­suits that Con­necti­cut has joined. Ari­zona has signed onto five of the law­suits. 

---

Click on a title to view details about each law­suit