BALTIMORE — Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown on Monday joined three new lawsuits against the Trump Administration.
Since retaking the White House, Brown along with 18 other Attorneys General from Democratic led states have sued Trump at nearly every turn, seemingly for most executive orders he issues.
Usually the states allege violations of the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The latest batch of lawsuits come in response to Trump's orders requiring off and onshore wind projects to undergo further review, before federal permits are granted.
Brown argues wind energy is one of Maryland's most effective tools in fighting climate change, a Democratically charged issue not aligned with Trump's priorities.
Here in Maryland, the General Assembly passed a law with the lofty goal of reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2045.
Part of the plan includes developing 8,500 megawatts of offshore wind energy by 2031.
Brown claims U.S. Wind could support more than 13,000 jobs, bringing over $6 billion to Maryland.
While Governor Wes Moore backed the lawsuit, Republican state lawmakers are chalking it up to political theater, because they believe wind projects will actually drive up electric bills.
“Attorney General Anthony Brown’s decision to join a multistate lawsuit opposing the Trump Administration’s pause on offshore wind development is a glaring example of misplaced priorities and political theater,” said Maryland Senate Minority Leader Steve Hershey. “While Maryland families grapple with rising energy costs and the economic burden of subsidized green energy mandates, the Attorney General is using taxpayer resources to defend an industry that can’t stand on its own without massive public subsidies. Offshore wind projects off Maryland’s coast are projected to drive up electric bills and require billions in long-term government support just to stay afloat.”
State Senator Mary Beth Carozza, echoed Hershey's remarks, in a letter to U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum.
"As the State Senator representing Ocean City, Maryland, and on behalf of the overwhelming number of Maryland constituents who have contacted me, I am requesting an immediate halt to the continuation of U.S. Wind's Offshore Wind Project (OSW) in the Atlantic Ocean of Maryland's Coast," Carozza said.
A third Maryland GOP Senator chimed in as well, calling Trump's plan a "reasonable" one.
“The Trump Administration's decision to pause offshore wind investments is a reasonable effort to reassess the costs, consequences, and feasibility of these heavily subsidized projects”, said Senator Justin Ready. “Marylanders deserve an energy strategy that delivers affordable, reliable power — not one that leaves them footing the bill for Washington’s environmental wish list. If the Attorney General is truly interested in protecting Marylanders, he should start by standing up for ratepayers — not suiting up for offshore wind.”
Similar complications contributed to Ørsted pulling out of a state agreement back in January 2024.
The company was slated to sell wind farm generated electricity near West Ocean City, in a project called Skipjack Wind 1 and 2 that would've generated a combined 966 megawatts powering 300,000 plus homes by 2026.
Brown's second lawsuit centers on the downsizing of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
As part of a broader initiative to shrink the Federal Government, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. directed the department's 28 agencies to condense into 15.
This resulted in staffing reductions, which according to Brown went from 85,000 to 65,000 employees.
A number of HHS agencies are based in Maryland, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in Silver Spring, and The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, in Rockville.
Here is some of what Brown alleges in the lawsuit:
"Miners suffering from black lung disease have been left unprotected as congressionally mandated surveillance programs were abruptly shut down. Workers across the country can no longer reliably access N95 masks following the closure of the nation’s only federal mask approval laboratory. Key Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) infectious disease laboratories have also been shuttered, including those responsible for testing and tracking measles, effectively halting the federal government’s ability to monitor the disease nationwide. Hundreds of employees working on mental health and addiction treatment, including half of the entire workforce at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have been fired, and all SAMHSA regional offices are now closed. The World Trade Center Health Program (WTCHP), which provides life-saving care to more than 137,000 9/11 first responders and survivors, stand to lose the doctors needed to certify new cancer diagnoses, leaving American heroes without access to the health care they deserve. Pregnant women and newborns are now at risk after the firing of the entire CDC maternal health team and Head Start centers could face closures after many regional employees at the Office of Head Start were let go."
It should be noted, the White House's newly proposed budget includes funding for Head Start.
While conceding Congress's power to allocate funding, Trump opines it's the executive branch's discretion on how to spend it.
Those decisions, he contends, are not subject to judicial review under the APA.
The Government's line of thinking was upheld on appeal in other lawsuits involving DEI grants for non-profits and teachers organizations.
As for Trump and Kennedy's authority to fire federal employees, two appeals courts — in the fourth and ninth circuits — overturned separate lower court rulings ordering the reinstatement of workers terminated from several federal agencies.
MORE: Maryland judge overruled, Appeals Court clears way for mass firings of federal probationary workers
Brown's third lawsuit targets the President’s efforts to secure federal elections.
Trump has long advocated for enhanced election security, that would require proof of citizenship and photo ID to vote.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump's also criticized mail-in voting, which he claims enables voter fraud.
His sentiments have sowed doubt in the minds of many GOP voters who've become reluctant to trust results of U.S. Elections.
To help combat those fears, Trump issued orders directing local and state election boards to discard mail-in ballots arriving after Election Day.
For those refusing to comply, Trump's threatened to withhold various federal funding.
Brown and his counterparts are asking a federal judge to issue a nationwide injunction, pausing those orders.
The states say Trump's orders suppress and disenfranchise voters.
A district court judge in Washington D.C., appointed by former President Barack Obama, already ruled on a similar case.
The judge deemed a majority of Trump's orders unconstitutional, but left some of the mail restrictions in-place.
RELATED: Judge blocks parts of Trump’s order that overhauls US elections
Mail-in voting has been the focus of pre-election litigation in many states before, including Pennsylvania, where misdated or undated forms can be discounted.
The U.S. Supreme Court turned away a civil rights challenge to those rules in January.
Like many of Brown's lawsuits, all three were selectively filed in New England based district-level courts, a part of the country where judges have proven more likely to lean in favor of the states, including the First Circuit of Appeals, all of whose active judges were appointees of former Presidents Biden and Obama.
The practice commonly known as "judge shopping" or "forum shopping," has landed before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Next week all nine justices will hear the Trump Administration's arguments against nationwide injunctions, which district court judges have frequently issued to stymie the President's agenda. Trump's position is the constitution limits district judges to narrow rulings, only within their districts, for the specific plaintiffs seeking relief.
The once little-used judicial remedy has become somewhat of the norm during the Trump era.
Compared to his predecessors, Trump has been on the receiving end of an overwhelming tidal-wave of nationwide injunctions, from single unelected judges, sitting in different jurisdictions within dozens of states.
Such rulings have raised urgent separation of power concerns, sparking questions of whether Trump should comply or defy, considering courts have no true enforcement mechanism against a sitting President with sweeping immunity and control of the DOJ, who is tasked with implementing judicial orders.
Some critics, like Trump's close adviser Elon Musk, have openly supported the idea of Trump ignoring the courts.
Legal scholars and prominent attorneys, including Vice President JD Vance, have called out judges for what they perceive to be illegal rulings.
Some GOP Congressional members have resorted to filing articles of impeachment against the judges, including one in Maryland, over their alleged abuse of power.
Due to a lacking super majority in the Senate, those efforts are all but certain to fail.