State Attorneys General and their Challenges to Federal Policies: Insights from the Texas v. California Litigation Regarding the Affordable Care Act.

This article examines the growing role of state attorneys general (AGs) in challenging federal policies through litigation, focusing on Republican-led efforts to overturn the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the case Texas v. California. It highlights how state AGs and solicitors general (SGs) have developed institutional capacities and networks that enable them to pursue national party goals via courts, even when their party controls Congress and the presidency. The study finds that Republican AGs strategically frame their legal challenges using "constitution-talk," invoking constitutional principles to mask partisan objectives, while Democratic AGs emphasize policy consequences in their public communications. The Texas litigation illustrates broader trends in polarized federalism, where state-driven lawsuits serve as alternative political venues to advance or resist federal policies amid legislative gridlock.