During the first Trump administration from 2017 to 2021, the Vermont attorney general’s office joined in on 54 lawsuits against the federal government, according to data provided by the office. 

Fifteen months into Trump’s second term, the state has joined 49 lawsuits against his administration, making Vermont well on track to beat its previous total. In fact, another lawsuit was announced on Friday afternoon just as this story was being edited: Vermont joined a coalition of 14 states and local governments suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over its failure to implement standards governing soot. 

Jared Carter, a Vermont Law School professor and constitutional law expert, said the rate was “unprecedented” — but he was clear that it isn’t really Vermont that’s acting in an unprecedented manner. 

“My view is that these are a response to unprecedented actions by the federal government,” he said. “The scope of what the Trump administration has attempted to do through executive action, for example, is pretty astounding.”

Vermont has joined suits challenging everything from Trump’s tariffs to federal workforce layoffs to the rollback of gender-affirming healthcare, cases that, if successful, could preserve tens of millions of dollars in federal funding for state programs and protect services that Vermonters rely on. But in the winding legal system, whether those early courtroom wins translate into lasting results remains to be seen. 

Attorney General Charity Clark and her office have joined in on a wide range of lawsuits generated by multistate coalitions dedicated to pushing back on Trump’s allegedly illegal actions.

“Over the past fifteen months, I truly believe that state attorneys general have served as a bulwark, protecting the Constitution and the rule of law, by blocking dozens of unconstitutional and illegal acts by the Trump Administration,” said Clark, who has served in the role since 2023, in a statement. Clark declined to be interviewed in the story, citing scheduling conflicts. 

In an email, Gov. Phil Scott’s press secretary, Amanda Wheeler, said there have been instances where Scott has agreed with Clark’s decision to sign onto lawsuits from other states. There have been times when the two conflicted. In 2025, Clark implied Scott had stalled electric vehicle funds stemming from a lawsuit. 

“In some cases, we’ve seen the positive outcomes of those lawsuits which is good news for Vermont,” Wheeler said.

She added, “The Governor has been clear that when it comes to the Trump Administration, he’ll continue to call balls and strikes and stand up for what’s in the best interest of Vermont and Vermonters.”

Data from the attorney general shows that the state has joined lawsuits throughout the past 15 months, with activity peaking in mid-2025. Clark has also filed 53 amicus briefs, or “friend-of-the-court” reports arguing in favor of the plaintiffs. 

That gender-affirming care lawsuit has become one of the state’s most clear-cut successes: A federal judge ruled in favor of the coalition on April 18, blocking a rule that would have restricted gender-affirming care for minors. 

“This decision is a victory in our ongoing fight for bodily autonomy and the rights of transgender youth,” said Clark in a statement Monday. “We will continue to fight to ensure that gender-affirming care remains safe, effective, and protected.”

But according to a document provided by Amelia Vath, Clark’s senior advisor, few lawsuits have had such a definitive victory. In 19 of the 49 cases, federal judges have ruled in Vermont’s favor, but most of those still have the possibility of an appeal. 

“In law, we learn never to pop the champagne bottle,” Carter said. “It’s always going to be an ongoing legal battle.”

Yet looking at the lawsuits so far, he said he believes Vermont has a good “batting average” on the suits it’s part of. 

“When you see things like courts granting preliminary injunctions, what that means is a court is telling the Trump administration, ‘You cannot do this,’ or they’re telling the Trump administration, ‘You must do this,’” he said. “So a preliminary injunction is a win for a plaintiff like the state of Vermont and all the other states.”

Even after a win, enforcing court orders has been a challenge with Trump, Carter said. The U.S. Department of Justice “does his bidding” to find loopholes in judicial decisions. 

“I think the Trump administration has taken that” to another level “when it comes to trying to figure out ways to work around decisions of the Supreme Court,” he said. 

He gave the example of Trump’s tariffs on imported international goods. Vermont was a part of the case in which the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs in March. Trump then immediately attempted to impose new tariffs, leading to yet another lawsuit Vermont joined. 

Only two cases have been total failures, according to the attorney general’s records. One was a suit challenging the Trump administration’s defunding of Planned Parenthood, which the plaintiffs withdrew in March. The other was a suit attempting to block mass layoffs of federal employees, a decision one circuit court blocked but another overturned on appeal. 

Vermont has yet to take the lead on any of the cases it’s joined, according to the attorney general’s records. It has also joined just a small part of the more than 700 lawsuits against the Trump administration, including 84 led by state plaintiffs, according to Just Security, a law and policy journal. 

According to the attorney general’s records, 16 of the lawsuits explicitly mention funding for state programs or federal programs that provide services to Vermonters, such as federal food assistance, natural disaster aid and energy programs. 

“Because of these lawsuits, my office has brought back tens of millions of dollars that were illegally withheld from Vermont,” Clark said in her statement. “I am very proud of the hardworking and patriotic lawyers in my office and our united mission to protect Vermont and our country.”

Carter said the direct financial consequences of Trump’s actions mean that these lawsuits seem like a good return on investment. Even non-financial lawsuits are important, though, because they rest on principles of equity and the rule of law, he said. 

“Even if you just got a preliminary injunction, and it doesn’t result in money coming into the state, you still stood up on the right side of history and said, ‘What’s going on here is not legal,’” he said. 

Carter himself has taken part in legal actions against the federal government before. He said that filing a suit against powerful figures like the president could be “intimidating,” but he also found it empowering. 

“Plaintiffs with strong legal arguments and conviction in their constitutional rights can be more powerful than the president,” he said.

Disclosure: Jared Carter has provided pro bono legal assistance to VTDigger.

Plans to serve booze at White Stadium’s professional soccer matches in Boston have encountered pushback by critics of the city’s public-private rehab plan, but a ban on alcohol would effectively kill the $325 million project.

Buried in the city’s 321-page lease agreement with Boston Legacy FC, the National Women’s Soccer League team set to play home games at the rebuilt stadium, is a provision that allows the team to walk away from the deal should the city’s Licensing Board choose not to grant its application for a liquor license.

“If … both the Boston Licensing Board and the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission issue a final non-appealable decision in which the applicable entity refuses to grant such a liquor license (for White Stadium) … then the tenant may terminate both this lease and the stadium usage agreement,” the lease states.

“Upon delivery of such termination notice, the parties’ rights, responsibilities, and the obligations under this lease and the stadium usage agreement shall be null and void, and without recourse to either party,” the lease states.

Boston Legacy FC has signed a 10-year lease agreement with the city to share use of Franklin Park’s White Stadium with Boston Public Schools student-athletes.

The team is paying more than $190 million for its half of the stadium renovations, with the city’s $135 million half of the costs paid for by taxpayers.

The Boston City Council defeated a resolution last month, by a 9-3 vote, that sponsors Ed Flynn and Julia Mejia said sought to uphold state law restricting alcohol at public school facilities.

Mejia and Flynn argued that booze should not be sold during professional soccer matches and other private events held at Franklin Park’s White Stadium, given that it is a city-owned public school facility.

“The Boston Public School policy is clear and the state law is clear,” Mejia said last month. “Alcohol is not permitted on public school premises, except under very limited circumstances, which this situation does not meet.”

Most councilors disagreed, including Gabriela Coletta Zapata, who called the rule “antiquated” and said it was not applicable in this instance.

“I think generally this is an antiquated viewpoint of how we regulate alcohol,” Coletta Zapata said last month. “It ignores how Boston responsibly balances public use, economic opportunity and community activation. We can’t pretend that a blanket prohibition is the only pathway forward, especially in a shared-use facility like White Stadium.”

The Emerald Necklace Conservancy and a group of park neighbors suing the city to try to block the project have also argued that alcohol should be banned at the facility. The lawsuit, which alleges the professional soccer stadium use would illegally privatize public parkland, is under consideration by the state Supreme Judicial Court.

— Gayla Cawley

No boos this time

Not sure what to make of Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll tossing out the ceremonial first pitch the other night at Fenway Park while the governor was away in California. The stands were still filling up, but nobody seemed to be voicing their political feelings. Is that good? As the saying goes, any publicity is good publicity.