The Rise of State Attorneys General as Political Power Players
In recent years, state attorneys general (AGs) have emerged as influential figures in national politics, moving beyond their traditional roles as state law enforcement officials. Missouri’s Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey exemplifies this trend, making headlines for suing high-profile targets like China and Starbucks over politically charged issues. While these lawsuits may not always result in financial gains or legal victories, they serve a larger purpose: advancing political agendas and signaling to constituents where their leaders stand on contentious issues. For instance, Bailey’s threat to seize Chinese-owned assets to enforce a $24.5 billion judgment over COVID-19-related claims is less about collecting money and more about sending a message. Similarly, his lawsuit against Starbucks for alleged discrimination against white men in hiring is a direct challenge to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs championed by liberals. These actions are part of a broader shift in how AGs operate, blending legal authority with political activism.
From Crime-Fighting to National Policy Battles
Historically, attorneys general focused on combating crime, enforcing consumer protection laws, and addressing local issues. However, over the past decade, their role has expanded to include suing presidential administrations and challenging federal policies. Republican AGs like North Dakota’s Drew Wrigley argue that they are compelled to act because Democratic presidents, such as Joe Biden, overstep constitutional boundaries. Wrigley has joined lawsuits against Biden’s environmental rules and immigration policies, framing these actions as defending the rule of law. This shift began in the 1990s when 46 AGs sued tobacco companies, securing massive settlements and demonstrating the power of collective legal action. Since then, AGs have become increasingly partisan, challenging policies under Democratic and Republican administrations alike. This politicization reflects the growing polarization of American politics, with AGs now seen as key players in advancing or blocking federal agendas.
Lawsuits as Political Tools: Grandstanding or Strategic Advocacy?
Critics often label such lawsuits as grandstanding, but they can yield significant political benefits for attorneys general. For example, Pennsylvania’s Democratic AG Josh Shapiro leveraged his challenges to Trump administration policies to win the governor’s race in 2022 and positioned himself as a contender for the 2024 vice presidential nomination. Similarly, Kansas Republican Kris Kobach resurrected his political career by promising to sue the Biden administration aggressively. Missouri’s Andrew Bailey, whose predecessors Eric Schmitt and Josh Hawley won U.S. Senate seats, has used high-profile lawsuits to build his national profile, even earning an audience with former President Donald Trump. While experts like Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution question the feasibility of collecting $24.5 billion from China, Bailey frames the lawsuit as a moral victory, stating, “This historic victory is a significant first step in holding wrongdoers accountable.”
Missouri’s Attorney General: A Case Study in Aggressive Legal Activism
Andrew Bailey’s tenure as Missouri’s AG has been marked by an unprecedented level of legal activism. Beyond suing China, he has targeted private businesses, public schools, and even other states. For instance, he demanded that public schools ban drag shows and threatened private gyms over bathroom policies. Bailey has also sued New York state, alleging that its prosecution of Donald Trump interfered with Missouri voters’ access to information in the 2024 election. Within weeks of taking office in January 2023, he joined a multistate lawsuit against the Biden administration’s immigration policy and challenged a federal rule allowing 401(k) managers to consider environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles in investments. Missouri has since joined numerous lawsuits against Biden’s policies, ranging from student loan forgiveness to transgender rights.
Starbucks as a Symbolic Target: The Battle Over DEI Programs
Bailey’s lawsuit against Starbucks represents a new front in the culture wars, specifically targeting DEI programs. The lawsuit alleges that Starbucks’ diversity initiatives, such as quotas and penalties for managers who fail to meet DEI goals, discriminate against white men. Bailey claims these practices violate state and federal laws prohibiting race- and sex-based employment decisions. Starbucks, which has not yet responded to the lawsuit, has seen its workforce become “more female and less white” since CEO Brian Niccol took over in 2020. While experts like Marquette University’s Paul Nolette doubt the lawsuit’s chances of success, they note that such legal challenges can have a chilling effect on corporate policies, delaying or altering their implementation. Bailey frames the lawsuit as a responsibility to protect Missourians from systemic discrimination, reinforcing his image as a champion of conservative values.
The Fallout and Future of Politicized State Attorneys General
The growing politicization of state attorneys general raises important questions about the role of these officers in a divided America. While lawsuits may not always achieve their intended legal outcomes, they serve as powerful tools for shaping public opinion and advancing partisan agendas. For AGs like Andrew Bailey, the value lies in the fight itself—the headlines, the rallies, and the solidarity they foster among their political base. However, this approach risks undermining the traditional nonpartisan role of AGs as enforcers of justice and protectors of consumer rights. As the polarization of American politics deepens, the actions of state attorneys general will likely become even more contentious, further blurring the lines between law enforcement and political activism. Whether this trend strengthens or weakens the rule of law remains to be seen.
