President Donald Trump has worked to advance his agenda at lightning speed, but courts have halted those efforts after an avalanche of challenges to his actions. North Carolina Republicans are eyeing a way to stop Democrats from adding to the onslaught.
Democratic attorneys general have been one of the few forms of resistance to Trump’s various actions, spearheading many of the most prominent lawsuits against the executive branch. While Trump won North Carolina in the 2024 election, Democrats saw sweeping wins in other statewide offices — including in the attorney general’s office.
The victory of Democrat Jeff Jackson in the attorney general’s race continued a lengthy Democratic win streak for that state office, but the attorney general’s powers have become a target for Republicans in recent months.
SB 382 strips power from governor, AG, and superintendent
After a bruising election for Republicans in various statewide races in the Tar Heel State, GOP lawmakers flexed their supermajorities by taking various powers away from state offices Democrats won.
Senate Bill 382 was introduced in late 2024 and was promoted as a relief package for the western part of the state, which was battered earlier that year by Hurricane Helene. The legislation also contained provisions taking aim at the governor, attorney general, and superintendent of public instruction. All of those offices were won by Democrats, who would be assuming office in January 2025.
The governor was stripped of the ability to appoint members of the state board of elections, while the superintendent of public instruction was restricted from siding against the state review board for charter school applications.
Under the law, the attorney general is “not authorized to take any position on behalf of the State of North Carolina that is contrary to or inconsistent with the position of the General Assembly.”
Gov. Josh Stein (D-NC) called the legislation a “power grab,” but it went into effect despite a veto from outgoing Gov. Roy Cooper.
The North Carolina branch of the American Civil Liberties Union decried the legislation, arguing it was an effort to undermine democratically elected officials from the electoral losers.
“Politicians who were unhappy with the results of the election stripped powers from fairly elected offices through political strong-arming. The decision to override the governor’s veto dilutes the voices of North Carolina voters and is an insult to our democratic system of checks and balances,” said Liz Barber, policy and advocacy director for the ACLU of North Carolina.
The next move for Republicans would work to protect a candidate who won the Tar Heel State from litigation by the attorney general.
SB 58 protects Trump executive orders from AG litigation
Republicans in the state Senate introduced Senate Bill 58 in January, aiming to expand the restrictions on who the attorney general may pursue legal action against.
The legislation would deny the state attorney general’s ability to “file an action that would result in the invalidation of an executive order issued by the President of the United States” or “advance any argument in a pending action that would result in the invalidation of any executive order issued by the President of the United States.”
Mitch Kokai, a senior political analyst at the conservative-libertarian John Locke Foundation, believes the law is more about keeping Jackson focused on North Carolina rather than about protecting Trump.
“This legislation aims to refocus the attorney general’s attention on his core duties: defending state government in litigation and fighting scams and other crimes with an impact across North Carolina. The office should not be used primarily as a vehicle to score political points,” Kokai told the Washington Examiner.
He also found the preceding legislation as consistent with that apparent goal to keep the state’s top prosecutor’s focus on the Tar Heel State.
“State lawmakers already passed a measure late last year that blocks the Attorney General from taking a legal stance that would invalidate a North Carolina law. The [attorney general] also faces new limits on the type of litigation he can initiate and join,” Kokai said. “Plus, he must defer to the General Assembly and its lawyers on legal strategy if lawmakers decide to take part in a case themselves.”
Since Trump took office in January, Jackson has joined with other Democratic attorneys general to sue the Trump administration over the Department of Government Efficiency’s access to agency data, the president’s executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship, and the broad freeze on federal funding.
Democrats see the legislation as an effort to strip the attorney general of power that they believe can be used to benefit North Carolina citizens. Jackson himself has invoked one of the lawsuits he joined in defending his ability to challenge presidential executive orders.
“It was a reminder that an important part of this job is being a shield against unlawful federal acts that would undercut our economy and hurt our future. For the good of our state, that shield should remain in place,” Jackson said, referring to a ruling restoring federal funds to research at universities.
Barber, from the ACLU, said the legislation raises concerns over the separation of powers and further undermines Jackson, who was elected in the same election as Trump.
“The Attorney General is duty bound to uphold the Constitution. They are duty-bound both as a lawyer and in their oath of office. This past November the people of North Carolina chose Jeff Jackson as their lawyer, trusting him to protect them. Protect them through enforcement of constitutional laws. And to protect their constitutional freedoms and rights,” Barber said in a statement shared with the Washington Examiner.
“By prohibiting the attorney general from taking actions to protect North Carolinian’s constitutional rights, this bill likely violates the AG’s constitutional oath of office and their oath as a lawyer; it raises separation of powers concerns, and it hurts North Carolinians,” she added.
Despite the arguments and concerns over the impacts of the law, Kokai believes Jackson should not use the office to pursue “Democratic Party political goals.”
“Senate Bill 58 fits with the legislature’s overall goal of ensuring the attorney general is doing his job, not just pursuing Democratic Party political goals and trying to ingratiate himself with other Democratic AGs across the country,” Kokai said. “Jeff Jackson can build his political resume in other ways, not by using taxpayer resources that should be devoted to more pressing needs.”
What comes next
The legislation is still pending a vote before the state House of Representatives, where it will need to be acted upon before the end of the session at the end of July. If sent to the Democratic governor, it will likely be vetoed. The legislation would need a three-fifths majority in both chambers to overcome a veto.
Republicans have a veto-proof majority in the state Senate but are one short of a veto-proof majority in the state House. To override Stein’s veto, the GOP would need either one Democrat in the state House flipping over to approve, undermining their fellow party members’ power, or ensure not all Democrats are in attendance when the veto-override vote occurs.
Two other states, Arizona and Wisconsin, have a Democratic attorney general and GOP majorities in both chambers of state legislature. There has not been a similar push to strip the attorney general in either of those states of the ability to challenge presidential executive orders.
The Democratic Attorneys General Association did not return a request for comment on whether there were concerns about attempts to curb the power of each state’s top prosecutor.
In nearby Kentucky, Republicans have attempted to take powers from the governor that could harm them at a federal level. When a U.S. Senate seat is vacated, by death or resignation, the governor appoints an interim senator until a special election can be held. While Kentucky is widely considered a strong Republican state, it has a Democratic governor.
In 2021, the GOP-led state legislature passed a bill, and overrode a veto from Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY), which forced the governor to pick from a list of three names given by leaders of the political party from which the previous senator was from. Beshear hinted he may not follow the law, which could have spawned a legal battle if a vacancy were to occur.
In 2024, the Kentucky legislature enacted a law keeping the seat vacant until a special election is held to fill the open Senate seat. Despite the change in state law, it could still prompt litigation if a vacancy occurred in the Bluegrass State.
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT RACE: WHY IS IT STILL UNDECIDED
Should the legislation in North Carolina be enacted into law, it would likely spark a legal battle over whether the legislature has the ability to restrict the litigation the attorney general may pursue.
In the Tar Heel State, the Supreme Court has a conservative majority. The state’s high court could become more red pending the outcome of a still undecided 2024 contest for a seat on the court.