The Courts Offer Democrats Relief for Only So Long

In the shambling Democratic response to the onslaught of changes wrought by President Trump in the first weeks of his second term, there has been one bright spot. Democrats control the attorney general’s office in 22 states, and they have filed the most important — and, so far, most successful — cases against controversial Trump administration initiatives.

Simple necessity has led Democrats, who are shut out of power in Washington, to rely on their attorneys general, but this strategy has its limits. Even these initial victories face uncertain futures in a federal judiciary dominated by Republican appointees, and, more to the point, liberals have often placed undue emphasis on achieving political change through the courts.

Liberals love lawyers. The first-term resistance, for example, fell hard for Robert Mueller, who as a special counsel in the Justice Department led an investigation into Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia. (There were “In Mueller We Trust” T-shirts and Mueller action figures.) Notwithstanding the hopes invested in Mr. Mueller as a dragon slayer, the political effects of his investigation turned out to be modest at best. Mr. Trump’s current adversaries have now passed the heroic mantle to the state attorneys general.

State attorneys general occupy an unusual niche in the government. Unlike the attorney general of the United States, the state officials usually have little or no responsibility for bringing criminal cases. (Local district attorneys prosecute most state crimes.) Most state attorneys general are elected, though some are appointed by governors, judges or the state legislature. For the most part, state attorneys general bring consumer protection cases — including big ones, like those against opioid manufacturers — and they defend states when they are sued. A few, like Letitia James in New York and Dana Nessel in Michigan, are somewhat well known, but most toil in semi-obscurity.

Not for long. Last week, a federal judge in New York restricted the access of Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency to the Treasury Department’s payment and data systems. A judge in Washington halted Mr. Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship. A judge in Rhode Island, John J. McConnell Jr., blocked the new administration’s ability to withhold funds from programs for which Congress has appropriated funds.

Then, on Monday, Judge McConnell raised the stakes when he ruled that the Trump administration had refused to comply with his order to resume the flow of federal grants. (That judgment is now being appealed.) If Mr. Trump’s defiance continues, the standoff will create the prospect of a constitutional crisis — and it will be the state attorneys general in the case who bear the responsibility of defending the rule of law.