On a special edition of Vermont this Week, we sit down for a conversation with Vermont Attorney general, Charity Clark.

From the Vermont public studio in Winooski.

This is Vermont this Week, made possible in part by the Lintilhac Foundation and Milne travel.

Here's moderator Mitch Wertlieb.

Thank you so much for joining us for Vermont this week.

And happy July 4th I'm Mitch Wertlieb.

It is Friday, July 4th, Independence Day.

And with us this week is Vermont Attorney General.

Charity Clark.

Thank you so much for being with us today.

Thanks for having me.

Now, six months into the start of President Trump's second term, the state of Vermont is part of, I believe at the time of this taping, the number is 2020 lawsuits against the administration.

Democratic state attorneys general have acted quickly and in lockstep to challenge a number of policies, including issues related to birthright citizenship, funding freezes and cuts, the dismantling of agencies and departments, and the president's executive orders.

So, Charity, Clark, let me start by asking, you know, there are a lot of lawsuits here, as I mentioned, at least 20 of them.

But what are some of the cases that you feel for your office and for Vermonters are the most urgent?

Well, the cases really come at this point after 20 almost in like buckets.

So there's different themes that we see.

The big one and most common one I think we see is defunding or the trying to, hold back grants that Congress has made.

So as a little constitutional law refresher in the Constitution, the Congress has the power of the purse.

We remember that phrase probably from from grade school.

They get to spend the taxpayers money, not the president.

And what the president has done with his executive orders, in many cases, he's tried to undo that.

Really, what he should do is go back to Congress.

They are obviously, ruled right now by the Republican Party, his own party, but instead he's trying to do it through executive order.

And we have fought back in many of our lawsuits.

So would you mention that, you know, getting Congress is controlled right now by the Republicans?

Is that is are they basically what's keeping, that effort from happening?

In other words, if they control the power of the purse, or are they not taking that power amongst the to themselves and just letting the president have these executive orders, hopefully stand?

Yeah.

I mean, it's hard to know what the president is thinking, but it seems to me that he really is setting aside the Constitution and saying, I want to do this.

And I was elected president.

So I think the people want me to do this too.

So that's the mandate question.

He says he has a mandate.

Yeah, right.

So he's ignoring the Constitution.

But of course, while he was elected by the voters of this country and has absolutely every right to install his vision for the country in place, that's what people wanted.

He doesn't have the right to violate the Constitution or federal law.

And that is where I come in, where you come in.

And lots of other states, state attorneys general as well.

So, you know, you and I spoke before the election, on Vermont edition, and we were talking about project 2025, which sort of kind of mapped out a lot of what we're seeing happen now, that seems to me to have given your office a little bit of prep time, and I'm curious the steps that may have been taken in advance, to support the efforts that you're seeing now, what did you and your office prepare to do?

Well, it really was helpful to have project 2025 that gave us a glimpse into what was coming, in working together.

And it wasn't just the AGS, although we are all friends, it was also all of the staff were working together as well.

They got to know each other in the process of preparing so that when the day came immediately.

As we will recall, though, it seems like a very long time ago, it was just, you know, five months ago that the president was sworn in.

And that first day he put forth all of these executive orders, while all of the relationships had already been built, because we've been working on it for months.

That was very helpful.

We'd identified different kind of areas of concern where we thought the president might act and had designated, okay, you guys are going to work on this.

This team over here is going to work on that.

And so, for example, I think it was day one that we filed the birthright citizenship ban case because we were already prepping and ready because of all of the preview that we got from project 2025.

Yeah, we're going to get into that a little bit later in the show, because at the time that we're taping this, there's obviously been a big decision coming down from the Supreme Court not directly related to birthright citizenship, but tangentially so.

And we'll be talking about that a little bit.

I'm curious about the benefits.

For this approach.

You know, joining with other state attorneys general, having these, you know, collective efforts is there are other benefits to that approach.

Are there downsides to it?

I mean, what are the strengths and weaknesses here that you're dealing with?

Well, I'm happy to say it is almost all strengths because for starters, Vermont has the second smallest attorney general's office in the country and the second smallest or the smallest overall, the second smallest for a Democrat.

So of all, and it's only Democrats so far who have sued the Trump administration over these unconstitutional or illegal acts.

And so we are very fortunate to have the benefit of all of these other states.

There's 23 states who work together on these, thousands, literally thousands of lawyers, are contained within all of our offices.

Little Vermont only has 100 lawyers in our office, and we have two lawyers who work on these issues.

They are contained in our appellate unit.

They're constitutional law experts.

So that's why they are assigned these.

But they're doing all of their other work on top of it.

So they're spending a lot of time, working with other states and trying to collaborate.

So we benefit from all of that.

And thank goodness, because the fact of the matter is, I swore an oath to uphold.

I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

I swore an oath to uphold the federal laws.

And so I would have to bring all these lawsuits regardless.

And thank goodness we have that benefit of the team of us working across the country on these issues.

I have to ask difficult question here, though, because when you bring up, you know, the small office, the number of people you have on staff and then taking on these bigger efforts, is that costing taxpayers any money in the state of Vermont at this point?

It is not because these are two salaried employees who get the same amount of money, regardless of whether if, you know, Kamala Harris could have won the election, they would still be here costing the taxpayers the same amount of money.

At this point, it doesn't cost us anything.

We are fortunate enough that the legislature did create a position to add to that unit.

But it wasn't just for these.

It was for other lawsuits and other caseloads that we have been expanded over the years to accommodate those as well.

What about the time, though, that it takes for the staff to be dealing with these larger issues?

Are they being distracted at all from anything that they should, or you'd rather have them be concentrating on here in the state of Vermont?

Well, I will say I make this joke, but it's actually not funny.

I say, what it's costing us is nights and weekends, because that's what's happening over this weekend.

You know, the solicitor general was working with other, solicitor generals and other states.

So it is has been a lot.

And, you know, it is it is hard to imagine we have three and a half more years of this.

But it is what the taxpayers are paying for is what the voters voted for.

This is my job.

I take it very seriously.

And honestly, I'm proud to represent Vermont.

I think a lot of people feel helpless, and I don't feel helpless because I have a really important role to play.

Me and those of us in the office.

Well, can you talk a little bit about some of the threats to Vermonters?

Let's say, you know, to these things that are happening way outside the Green Mountain State here?

You've talked about things like, you know, defunding agencies.

We saw what Elon Musk did when he was head of DOJ's the Department of, Government Efficiency.

Elon Musk is no longer with the government.

You know, he was like sort of a flash in the pan thing.

But, you know, again, there was an effort here, from from the AG's to, to fight back against those.

What were some of the threats there?

What were you concerned about with what that agency was doing?

I mean, the bottom line for me is it's the rule of law.

You know, the details are important, but I am focused on the violation of all of these, fundamental rights systems that we have, like due process respecting the balance of powers in the, in the three branches of government, respecting that we live in a federal nation, a federalist system where each state is a sovereign state with its own rights, with its own responsibilities.

Of course, Vermont was famously a republic.

I mean, we are very independent.

When we joined the USA, we are the United States of America.

The states have their own important role that they play, and especially the right.

And I don't take kindly to those rights getting trampled on.

And it's up to me, as attorney general to bring Vermont into a lawsuit if we need to protect the system.

So I would start there and say, my focus is the rule of law.

That is so critical in terms of the impacts that the violation of the rule of law is having the most immediate impact that you can see, I think, is the withdrawal of federal funds.

Now, that's our tax dollars, our federal tax dollars.

Coming back to the state.

Congress made that appropriation, and it is not constitutional to take it away.

And it really is in a variety of areas.

The other thing that I find honestly ironic is that the Department of Government Efficiency is supposed to be making things more efficient, but actually it has been incredibly efficient the way they've approached this.

If they had just gone through Congress, they probably would have been much more successful.

Instead, they had and it was so sloppy, the way that it was done, it unnerved people because there weren't protections in place in terms of people's privacy and data being protected.

People who were hired apparently weren't even googled because they had, you know, a history that would indicate they weren't in an appropriate role.

I mean, they skipped all these steps which required us to go to court, and we're wasting time in court.

And really, what has what money has been saved?

I think that has been highlighted as a little bit of a folly that they overstated how much money was saved and the programing that would have been lost with the money that should have been spent that way.

What was the kind of data that, Elon Musk was allowing the people that he hired to look at?

What were they where were they taking a look at that could be potentially sensitive information for Vermont?

Well, the tax department, is so of course, you know, as a refresher, it is my office who receives notices of data breaches and also my office that contains the Consumer assistance program, where folks can call and report a scam or if they feel they've been scammed or their identity has been stolen, they can call.

So we do.

And it's like that in every state across the country, every attorney general's office across the country.

So we take really seriously issues of data privacy because we know so much about it, and we know what can happen when things go wrong.

So the idea of that someone who hasn't been appropriately vetted is, having access to all of our Social Security information, our numbers, our, you know, income, all of those kinds of, bank account numbers, all of that kind of thing is, it's disturbing.

But more importantly, to me, it's inappropriate.

That's not how things are supposed to be done.

And it's created an environment of chaos which does not reflect to me the, the kind of stature that the United States should have at this point.

Are there other policy areas that your office is keeping a particular eye on right now, in terms of policy areas?

Violations of civil rights is is concerning.

Any time I see due process, due process not being followed, I'm disturbed both as a rule following lawyer but also as an American.

So we are focused on those.

But it's it's interesting.

During the first Trump administration recall that we did sued dozens and dozens and dozens of times.

Back then, there was a real focus on environmental cases.

Environmental issues were tracked.

He was he was pushing against the rules when it came to the environment.

And I would say half the cases we filed related to the environment.

This has been a really very different, approach.

I mean, we've had almost no environmental cases.

Many of the cases have related to trying to defund the government on the federal level or pull back grants that were already awarded to the states.

There was, however, related to the environment.

The Vermont was going to be one of the first.

It may be the first in the nation, state, to have a climate, law where you could sue the big oil companies, for, you know, contributing to human caused climate change.

And then your office joined a multi-state lawsuit against that, right.

What can you tell us about that?

Are you referring to the Superfund?

Yeah, yeah.

Superfund act.

We actually were sued.

Oh, right.

This was the response to that?

Yes.

Yeah, totally.

The state was sued.

So, you know, we the attorney general's office is the lawyer to the state.

So we are very proud to do that work.

Sometimes we're suing and sometimes we're defending lawsuits.

And this is an example of when we're defending a lawsuit.

So I can talk a lot when we sue.

I don't talk as much about when we're defending a lawsuit.

We like to litigate in court.

So I won't say much about it, but yes, we, that is a law that was, recently passed and we were sued as a result.

So what are some of the other things that you are suing for right now, that again, some of the big things that you want Vermonters to be aware of?

Well, I would say, the most critical issue is relates to the rule of law.

So, and we're focusing on, like I said, those systems of, you know, due process, the three branches of government, separation of powers, the sovereignty of the states.

I mean, there's a theme and we can talk about all these different cases, but a lot of it comes back to that.

What I think we're seeing is a president who doesn't really want to follow the rules, wants to do things his own way and do it an easy way.

But he also likes to consolidate the power in himself.

And if you look a thread that connects all of these different lawsuits, we've brought that is definitely a scene where it's someone else's job and he's trying to do the job himself.

And in doing so, doing what he's forcing to have happen is for the courts to determine the boundary of where his power is.

And so he might be, you know, doing something that seems absolutely bananas.

I'll give it as an example, the birthright citizenship, ban, which makes its from a policy perspective, would be preposterously chaotic, but also it's unconstitutional.

And it's so unconstitutional that a federal judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, who looked at this very early on, said it was the most unconstitutional thing you'd ever seen.

All right.

So, yeah, I want to I want to dig into this now because this is a really big issue.

And Americans are just trying to come to terms with this.

Right?

Right.

In a major.

They're calling it a major victory for President Trump.

Last week, the Supreme Court did limit the ability of federal judges to put a pause on his executive orders.

You were just talking about this now in his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order that would upend the principle of birthright citizenship.

This is part of the Constitution, as you mentioned.

Check out the 14th amendment.

It's right there.

The majority stressed that it was not addressing the merits of Trump's attempts to end automatic citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil, but the decision may reshape the way citizenship is granted, even if it's temporary.

This is a little complex, but Vermont was part of this lawsuit.

As a lawyer, how does the nation move forward and what are the impacts that this ruling can have on all executive orders, regardless of party moving forward?

I think for this case, which, like you said, it's complicated and it feels overwhelming because birthright citizenship feels so fundamental.

I would set aside the question of birthright citizenship, which we'll deal with, but that that wasn't what was being dealt with.

What was really being dealt with is the ability for a federal judge to have to issue a state, a state wide, a nationwide injunction.

And, you know, this happened to us under the Biden administration, if you recall, I think it was or would that be 2023?

Pretty early on, there was a case that we had filed along with other states in Washington.

Meanwhile, another case was going on in Texas related to mifepristone, the abortion drug, and that.

Remember that?

Yes.

And the judge in Texas tried to issue a nationwide, ban on Mr. Preston.

So we've seen this in the past.

It's not anything new.

Obviously.

The Supreme Court wanted to weigh in on the issue.

However, Justice Sotomayor of Justice I admire greatly, highly recommend her memoir.

She made some really good points about how chaotic this, is, and especially the idea that a federal judge can't stop an unconstitutional thing from happening in a state.

And it's just because that state's attorney general, unlike me, hasn't sued.

So right now, and people ask me about this, why is it only Democrats suing?

And I've said repeatedly, I think at some point we're going to reach that point where even Republican attorneys general, despite the discomfort of going against the leader of their party, will want to be joining lawsuits.

And I think that is happening because if there's no nationwide injunctions, then those red states aren't benefiting from the lawsuits the blue states are filing.

And only if, only if our kind of, you know, the rewards are reaping.

The rewards of our cases aren't.

It's only happening with blue states where the red states are going to continue to suffer.

And I think it'll be really interesting to see what happens from here.

Well, you mentioned the example of the Biden administration.

This could end up cutting both ways.

I mean, right now, you know, if you were a supporter of President Trump and the Republican agenda, things look rosy for you.

But it could be in the future that it might go the other way.

Right?

Yeah, that's what I think.

I mean, well, also, all of this stuff that we're seeing, which is also, by the way, why I think it's so important that we should be focusing on what the rule of law is, what the Constitution says.

We don't want to favor one party or the other.

We want our country foundation to be preserved.

And that is why we should all be focusing on those issues and not necessarily the details.

Because exactly right.

At some point there isn't going to be a Republican in the white House.

There will once again be a Democrat, and we're not going to be for that person or against, and we're going to be for the Constitution.

And that's we should all be keeping our eye on that prize.

I'm glad you brought up.

You mentioned that, you know, eventually there may be a Democratic president.

There may be.

But, you know, and one of the things I want to bring up, though, is your office has created a guide to know your rights guide.

Right.

And there's a lot of really important information that that people will need to know but have.

Has your office been involved in anything dealing with elections, you know, and concerns about that in the future?

We are really fortunate in Vermont to have a wonderful Secretary of State, Sarah Copeland Hanzus, who's very devoted to her work, very experienced and a great office.

We do enforce the campaign finance law.

We support the Secretary of State's office when they need, you know, legal assistance.

And I, of course, personally support her.

And all of her work.

We've been in touch about these issues and will continue to be in touch about these issues, which are really critical and fundamental.

Like you, you know, you pointed out our no, your rights guidance.

We don't do immigration law.

We want it to provide that, that information to people because we have expertise in the office.

And I'm glad we did it in English and Spanish.

And when it comes to, you know, election issues, we'll do the same thing.

We're going to try to educate ourselves and where our lane is.

We will be doing our best in that lane to try to be supportive, any way we can.

So the Know your rights guide is dealing specifically with the issue of immigration.

What what new Americans may need to know, what are some things, some bullet points there that you think they really shouldn't need to know?

Well, you know, I, I'm myself.

I'm not an immigration expert, of course.

And I thought that there were some really great, points that was new.

They were new to me.

So, especially for someone who doesn't speak English very well or at all, you have a right to have documents in a language that you understand if you are, if you're struggling to understand something that's being said to you, you have a right to an interpreter.

I think those are things that really stand out.

I also think it's important to recognize there's two types of warrants.

So if, you know, an officer approaches and says, I have a warrant, is it an Ice warrant?

You know, I relate to immigration or is it the warrant that, you know, we're Americans are more familiar with a search and seizure type warrant where they can actually search your property?

So understanding which kind of warrant it is.

And those are the things that I would say most stood out to me that were critical.

I would say many people who read this aren't worried for themselves.

They're worried for their neighbors.

They're worried for that, you know, their kids, friend's mom or whatever it is.

And they should also read, this is 15 pages long.

It's nice that you can know the rights that we all have so that if someone needs you, you'll have that information for them.

What's the easiest way to find this, guide?

If you go to our website, you can find it by, we put it on, our web page where we are collecting all of our lawsuits, our amicus briefs, our friend of the court, briefs and guidances and statements.

If you go to the main page ago.vermont.gov.

There's American flag.

You can click on the American flag.

And there's three charts.

This one's in the bottom chart.

The chart that has the guidances in this and those kinds of things.

And you can find it there.

There's so much more I want to get to.

But very briefly I want to ask you about this because the birthright citizenship, it is so complex.

But this is my understanding of it.

And please correct me if I'm wrong.

What the, Supreme Court said was that there cannot be these national injunctions again, to, to stop a certain order.

But the, you know, the the 14th amendment clearly states that anyone born in the United States is considered, you know, has the protections of due process as a, you know, born in the United States, even if you were born to parents who don't have documentation here.

So what I have heard is that, Amy Coney Barrett, for example, for example, who was writing the majority opinion for this, was saying this doesn't end birthright citizenship, but it would have to be a like a class action where states would join together to challenge these individually, state by state, if there was a challenge to that.

Is that about right?

That I don't know.

I think the thing to remember about this issue is that the Supreme Court has already weighed in on this issue many years ago, and so I'm not so sure that, although this Supreme Court is very conservative, I think that we're going to win this.

If I had to if you if you you told me you have to pick one side, I think we're going to win this, because it's set in, there's a lot there's, there's, fundamental precedent that directs that.

It should be upheld.

It's very plainly written in the Constitution.

There's not.

The Constitution, of course, is perfect, but not everything is perfectly written.

This is not in that category.

So I actually think we're going to prevail eventually.

We're we're now on the lower court and we'll know about no doubt making our way to the Supreme Court eventually.

But I think we ultimately will prevail on this.

Yeah, we're certainly the whole country is going to be watching that very closely.

And how chaotic would it be if in some states there was birthright citizenship and some states there weren't?

I mean, that's why I was asking the question.

That's exactly right, which seems so chaotic and crazy.

How could you possibly be determined?

Right.

I want to get to another issue here.

The Supreme Court recently ruled on a case related to trans affirming care for youth.

What can you tell Vermonters who are concerned about the ruling and its potential implications?

In Vermont?

The most important thing to hear is that here in Vermont, you have rights.

Here in Vermont, our wonderful legislature made sure that you are protected.

So while that was very discouraging to see people who here in Vermont need to hear that you are safe, you're in Vermont.

Classic question about that.

Sort of.

You mentioned the legislature.

How closely does your office talk to the governor, legislators about these issues?

I sometimes get concerned that there, you know, everyone is so busy, it can almost be a silo effect.

But really, you're talking about the strength of the state of Vermont, what it can do, this small little state is a brave little state to protect itself against certain things.

How often does your office speak with the governor, with the state legislature, to to prepare for these things?

I mean, I don't want to sound like Pollyanna, but I let me be the witness in Montpelier offering a testimonial to to other Vermonters who aren't there.

We have an incredibly functional government here in Vermont.

We talk all the time.

Most of us, we're friends with each other.

We know each other.

My office, of course, serves the Scott administration and the governor as their lawyers.

So we talk with them every day.

We talk with legislators practically every day as well.

And other statewide electeds.

Everyone is very devoted to their work, trying to move in the same direction.

And I hope that Vermonters hearing that will feel reassured about how functional the Vermont government really is.

Last question I have for you, Attorney General Clark, as the Vermont attorney general, a lawyer, a Vermonter, and a parent as well.

I mean, what are your hopes and fears for our country as we look towards the future?

We are at a particular moment in time here.

You know, we can't sugarcoat it.

This feels different.

What are your hopes, your fears, etc.?

I fundamentally am a patriot.

I believe in democracy.

I believe in the judicial system, and honestly, I have a lot of hope for the future.

This is a test that I think we're going to pass.

Thank you so much for the time today.

I really very much appreciate it.

This is Vermont's attorney general Charity Clark, and that's where we're going to leave it for today.

Thank you so much for tuning in this special edition of Vermont this Week.

Thanks for watching.

Thanks for listening.

And we'll see you right back here next Friday.

I'm Mitch.

Wertlieb.

Happy Independence Day.

Enjoy your holiday.

And thank you so much for watching Vermont this week.