Since the beginning of the Trump Administration, Michigan’s Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel has filed six lawsuits against the federal government. The AG has also filed amicus briefs in twelve other cases. Since President Trump took office again on January 20th, Nessel has been at the forefront of Democratic Attorneys General who have filed suit against the administration’s controversial Executive Orders. “This will certainly not be the last of our lawsuits, unfortunately, if the federal government continues to flagrantly violate the law, the Constitution, and many norms that just have been part of the federal government for decades, if not centuries,” Nessel told It’s Just Politics.
And these lawsuits are not the only times that Nessel has been part of prominent federal cases. This year marks the 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, the federal case that made same-sex marriage legal nationwide. And this Friday, March 21st, marks the 11th anniversary since Federal Judge Bernard Friedman ruled in Detroit that Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
So it all seemed like a very good time to speak with Nessel, particularly as we have seen in the past few weeks in Lansing, more attention being paid yet again to gay marriage. But first, in our conversation with Nessel, we started with the lawsuits against the federal government.
Zoe Clark: How are you determining which lawsuits you want to bring, or that you want the state to be a part of?
Attorney General Dana Nessel: The formula that I use, and that I make my determinations on whether or not to join a lawsuit, to bring a lawsuit, really just two factors, right? Firstly, whatever the federal action is, whether I like it or not, whether I think that it's bad for the state or not: does it violate the law? And secondly, if it does violate the law, is there a specific concrete harm that's being done by that action to either the state of Michigan or to the people of the state of Michigan. And if both of those elements are satisfied, then generally we join in litigation. And so for the cases that we've brought, there are very specific harms that were being done or ongoing harms as a result of illegal actions by the federal government.
ZC: Is there one Executive Order that you have brought a suit against that you feel has had the greatest impact on Michiganders?
DN: Well, I would say of all of these, and they're all incredibly harmful to people in our state and really across the United States, but of course, we saw the case involving the Office of Management Budget who suddenly out of nowhere issues a memo saying that they're going to put what they call the pause on the funding of really significant programs. And when I say significant I mean Medicaid which services some 2.6 million people in our state. Head Start, over 42,000 kids under the age of five, Meals on Wheels, FEMA funding for emergencies, SNAP, you know, food assistance for 1.5 million Michiganders, and so many other important federal programs all came to a halt. So, of course, it was incredibly important for us to file suit on that as quickly as possible, and we did in less than 24 hours. And to get a temporary restraining order, and later a preliminary injunction to ensure that these programs had to be funded, as of course was designated through Congress. Because can you imagine the harm that would come to millions and millions of people in this state, understanding, of course, that 43% of Michigan's budget is actually federally funded. And I would like to remind your listeners, Michigan taxpayers and businesses pay over $30 billion a year to the federal government, but that money comes back to us in the way of these federally administered programs. So, I mean, this is our money. If we have these programs suddenly, without notice, cut off, just incredible damage to our state and to our state residents.
I think that those Democrats will look back on this very difficult and concerning time in American history and have deep regrets that they didn't do more to fight back when they still had the opportunity to do so.Dana Nessel
ZC: My understanding is you meet and speak regularly with your fellow attorneys general, or Democratic attorneys general. What have those conversations been like?
DN: We are obviously very scared for our respective states and the direction of the country, but we are also determined and we also sort of know what we're there for and what we're there to do. We are there, quite simply, to protect the people of our respective states. And again, if you look at lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, I am bewildered by the fact that Republican attorneys general are so scared to initiate these lawsuits. I'm gonna look at, for instance, the case we brought against the National Institute of Health. One of the cases, one of the couple cases that Michigan was a lead state on. And we're talking about in one false swoop, hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants going to our universities, going to our treatment centers, and also the clinical science behind it that would be lost that's so important. So I brought that case immediately. And within the same day, the judge had ordered a restraining order. And within a few days after that, the National Institute of Health said that the grants were going to resume. But to me, that's a no-brainer in terms of the impact on the state. But I look at the Republican AGs and I think, ‘don't you care about the people of your state?’ I look at the Alabama Attorney General, understanding that the University of Alabama, they're the biggest job provider in the entire state and yet he didn't join into this action. So it tells me that for the Republican AGs, they are more beholden to their fealty to President Trump than they are to the residents of their state, the voters of the state, the people who elected them, the people who they're supposed to serve. So for the Democratic AGs, I will say this: we know what our mission is, we know what our job is, and that is to protect our state residents.
ZC: Are there any moments of levity that you all have together?
DN: I mean, you know, I think it's a collegial group. And for the most part, we get along. Like any group of elected officials, everybody has their egos, right? And we have spirited debates, oftentimes about the claims. And there are cases that, for instance, I might decide not to join in on. Sometimes it's a standing issue because I don't think it's directly impacting the state of Michigan, even if I don't like the policy in general. Sometimes I just don't feel like the claims are that strong. So I decide to go my own way. Maybe I'll file a separate lawsuit that I think has stronger claims. But everybody, I think, understands what each person is trying to do. We're trying our best to hold up under really challenging circumstances. But, you know, I heard a quote by the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, and she talked about the fact that, ‘this is unheard of that there are 15 courts, just in a single month, that granted injunctive relief in cases brought against the Trump administration.’ And I thought, ‘well, no kidding, it's because you're breaking the law each and every day in the most brazen manner possible.’ So that's why so many lawsuits are being filed. And that's why so many courts are granting injunctive relief. But it honestly scares the daylights out of me to hear the likes of President Trump, Vice President Vance, and of course, Elon Musk, I don't know what to call him, the co-president, I guess, who routinely disparage the federal courts and make indications that at any time they may decide not to comply with court orders, which I think most of us believe would incite a constitutional crisis. So I think I can speak on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Democratic AGs, this is a scary time. We've never had a president of the United States before say, ‘I may not comply with judicial orders.’ It's just never happened. But I think it's a realistic set of circumstances that at some point we're likely to see.
ZC: How do you think this ends?
DN: Hard to say. TBD?! I should tell you, I was at Michigan State University Law School the other day. I was talking about some of the concerns that I have about this administration essentially being lawless and potentially not complying with the law. And there's been many instances, by the way, where the federal courts have been exasperated because they know that the Department of Justice is lying to them, brazenly lying to them on the record in open court. And so this student at MSU Law said, ‘should we even bother finishing our law school education. I mean, will lawyers be obsolete?’ And I said back to her, ‘no, you should absolutely finish law school because we're gonna need lawyers now more than ever to challenge all of this.’ And my hope is that at some point, not just the Democrats, of course, but the Republicans will come along and say, ‘we can't have this anymore. We can't have the utter and complete destruction of our country and everything that has been based on.’ Because if you have an administration that believes that they are literally exempt from, or above the law, I don't know what you have left of the United States of America. And I just hope that by the time that the Republican Party and those who support President Trump come around to seeing how destructive that is, that it's not too late.
ZC: You are fighting using the courts. Other Democrats - elected Democrats - don't necessarily have those tools in their toolbox. And there's just been so many conversations within - and outside of - the Democratic Party about how Democrats are - or are not - fighting back. I'm curious about what you think of Democrats who have, at least publicly, said they are willing to work with Trump and his administration versus what many progressives are sort of missing or feeling like this fight-like-hell mentality has been lost in some respects?
DN: We are in this very unique set of circumstances. Again, we have a president that is completely disinterested in not just abiding by any of the historical norms that have been set, but thinks nothing of shredding the Constitution or undermining the law, thinks nothing of disparaging Americans, has really, I would say, almost set our flag ablaze on the global stage, turned our allies against us and instead is supporting our long-time enemies like Vladimir Putin. I mean, how do you negotiate with somebody who fancies himself to be a king and not a president? How do you negotiate with somebody who is so willing to go back on their word? You can't trust anything that he says. So I just don't know how you look at a President Trump the same way you would, you know, a President Bush or Reagan or -
ZC: And yet there are Democrats who are taking a pragmatic approach… in terms of trying to work with this president.
DN: I think that those Democrats will look back on this very difficult and concerning time in American history and have deep regrets that they didn't do more to fight back when they still had the opportunity to do so.
ZC: You really rose to prominence in Michigan, and throughout the country, when you, now more than a decade ago, were part of the fight for same-sex marriage. Let's start with the fact that this week, Friday, marks 11 years since federal judge Bernard Friedman ruled that Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Take me back to that day.
DN: It was unmitigated joy. I remember so vividly sitting at the kitchen table with our clients, April and Jayne, and seeing the opinion come in just after, I think, five o'clock p.m. on a Friday. The opinion that was issued by Judge Friedman, and I think for the sake of your listeners, I mean, this is only the third time in American history that the issue of marriage equality was put to a trial. And it was, I would say, an unmitigated success, our trial, from every standpoint. But the thing that was most interesting to me, even more so than, of course, winning our case at the district court level and winning the trial, was the fact that there was no stay attached. And I remember being on live TV, and I'm scrolling through this on my laptop, and I'm like, ‘I don't see a stay, I don't see a stay.’ And I remember thinking like, ‘boy, I'm gonna look really stupid if there's a stay, and I just don't see it.’ What that meant, of course, is that clerks around the state were free to immediately begin marrying same-sex couples. And so when I left April and Jayne's house, I immediately got on the phone with as many county clerks as I could. And the discussion was, ‘who wants to open on a Saturday?’ Because what I knew was that the Michigan Department of Attorney General, you know, ironically, the place that I'm now the head of, that former General Schuette would immediately seek a stay in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which he did, but that we had this brief moment in time where couples could get married. And the way things had traditionally worked is that if you got married when it was legal to do so, you would then be grandfathered in. So I thought, ‘well, I don't know if we're going to win this case down the road, but at least whoever gets married right now, while it is legal, those marriages will be long lasting legally.’ So, as you know, the next day, four counties opened up their offices on a Saturday and you had, I think it was, 323 couples that married within a matter of hours before the stay was issued by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. And I don't think I slept that entire weekend. But, it was like the best high for me I've ever had in terms of like that feeling of your legal work making such a significant difference in the lives of so many different people. It's sort of unmatched for me, even though I've done a few things since that time, but I don't know that anything can really match that feeling I had during that weekend.
ZC: The decision was later put on pause, only then to end up, with the issue at least, in the Supreme Court. This summer will mark 10 years since the Obergefell case, when same-sex marriage was ruled constitutional nationwide. So here we are now, a decade later, and you have a Republican member of the State House of Representatives who has introduced a resolution late last month calling on the Supreme Court to reverse the decision to legalize same-sex marriage. What do you make of that?
DN: Yeah, I mean, this is bittersweet, right, because here we've had nearly a decade now of legal marriages for same-sex couples all across the United States and normally that'd be something to really celebrate but I think we have to remember that the Obergefell decision in my opinion very wrongly named - should have been Deboer v Snyder but we filed our petition of certiorari two hours late with the United States Supreme Court and that's why it's named Obergefell v Hodges, Jim Obergefell being, what I call an accident of history, that his name got to be had in this. It had been Deboer v Snyder in the Sixth Circuit before the filing, just a fun note for your listeners. But with that being the case, you know, I think that for the vast, vast majority of people in the United States, they see that marriage equality brings security to same-sex couples and their families in a variety of ways. It's not just that it's so helpful to those families, it's that it doesn't hurt anybody else, right? To still have some 10 years later, people like this representative that you're talking about trying to dissolve marriages like mine when it doesn't benefit in any way. How's your family better? Because I'm not allowed to have a legal family. He's not stated that. And I've never heard anybody say ‘here's the benefit of prohibiting same-sex marriages.’ And what we've seen is that these marriages are accepted by the large majority of people in our state and around this country. It's just a matter of being cruel for the sake of cruelty. But there's just so many people that are hurt by it. I hope that we think better of our state representatives than to be introducing either laws or resolutions that don't help anyone, but hurt so many.
ZC: Shortly after Republican Representative Josh Shriver introduced this resolution, a number of Democrats at the state Capitol introduced their own proposal to protect same-sex marriage. This is because, even though the Supreme Court has ruled, Michigan still has a 2004 constitutional ban on its books. Should a constitutional amendment question go on the statewide ballot in Michigan in 2026 to protect same-sex marriage?
DN: I think it has to. And the reason I say that is because I think the Obergefell decision is in real jeopardy. These resolutions, right? There have been multiple resolutions like the one that Rep. Schreiber brought in other states, and it's really a coordinated effort to inspire cases to be brought. We know a resolution can't overturn a Supreme Court decision, but there can be other cases that are litigated that wind up later being heard before the United States Supreme Court, and I really believe that they have a majority on that court, that would overturn that decision. And if that happens, of course, the Michigan marriage amendment, which is part of the Michigan Constitution still, would spring back into effect. So would the statute that's on the books that prohibits same-sex marriage. And so what you really need to do is have a ballot proposal. It's the only way in order to repeal both the constitutional amendment and the state statute to ensure that if Obergefell is overturned, that same-sex marriage remains the law of the state of Michigan. And so, unfortunately, I really think there's no other choice as long as we have this conservative majority on the United States Supreme Court.
ZC: Speaking of 2026, finally before we let you go, you are term-limited. Democrat Gary Peters surprised many when he announced he won't be running for Senate again next year. This leaves an open U.S. Senate seat. You have expressed interest, or at least I should say, you haven't said you aren't running. Any more thoughts about what 2026 looks like for you?
DN: You know, candidly, Zoe, it's really hard for me to focus on anything in 2026 when I see the state of the country in such disarray now in 2025. And I wanna believe that we'll have these midterm elections with free and fair elections the way that we've had for so many years, but I'm so fundamentally focused on making sure that we preserve that right and so many other rights right now. It's just really hard for me to sort of get into a place where I'm thinking about, ‘oh, what's the next office I can run for’ when I know how hard I have to work in the office that I'm currently in to make sure that we're preserving voting rights and every other right that we have right now. So I've not yet made a decision about what my future looks like. I would sort of push back against the notion that because a person is an elected office, that they must always run to make sure they remain in elected office. I think you could still be a fully formed human and not have an H-O-N in front of your name. But that being the case, I don't know. Maybe. I might, I might not. I don't know yet. I'm just incredibly devoted to the idea that we need to preserve our democratic norms. And the way we do that is by pushing back legally in the courts. And so that has been my biggest focus right now. Perhaps things will let up at some point and I'll have time to evaluate other things. But right now I don't know any job in the state or federal government that's more important than the job I have right now.
ZC: AG, thanks so much for your time.
DN: Thanks for having me, Zoe.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Want to get political updates from Zoe and Rick straight to your inbox? Sign up for the It's Just Politics newsletter!
