HOLDING THE LINE: Maryland’s Federal Accountability Unit and the Fight Against Unlawful Federal Actions
BY MEHEK SINGH, SUMMER LAW CLERK, MARYLAND OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
In an era marked by sharp divisions between the states and the federal government, the Maryland Office of the Attorney General (OAG), with the support of the Maryland General Assembly and the Governor, created an essential mechanism for protecting Maryland’s laws, funding, and programs: the Federal Accountability Unit (FAU). Established in the wake of escalating federal actions that threaten Maryland’s legal and policy interests as well as the civil rights of Marylanders, particularly since the beginning of the Trump administration’s second term, the FAU stands as a coordinated, impact-driven legal force. Its mission is straightforward: to monitor, challenge, and reverse unlawful federal actions that affect Maryland and its residents. This mission reflects Attorney General Anthony Brown’s commitment to ensuring that Maryland is prepared to respond swiftly and effectively to federal actions. This article explores how the FAU was formed and operates, as well as the pivotal cases it has undertaken thus far, outlining its role in safeguarding Maryland’s rights and shaping the state’s legal response to federal overreach.
Origins and Purpose of the FAU
The FAU was born of necessity. When the first Trump administration began implementing sweeping federal changes in early 2017, Maryland, like many other states, found itself confronting a flood of legally questionable executive actions and agency decisions. Recognizing that these challenges required a dedicated, coordinated response, the Maryland General Assembly passed the
Maryland Defense Act, empowering the Attorney General to initiate or join lawsuits against the federal government to protect state interests. Throughout the first Trump administration, the OAG utilized this authority to join a myriad of lawsuits challenging its actions, albeit with limited resources.
Attorney General Brown became the driving force in spearheading the creation of the Federal Accountability Unit and ensuring its mission was squarely focused on defending Maryland’s most pressing legal and policy priorities.
In addition to bringing legal actions, the Maryland OAG has recognized that individuals impacted by these federal actions needed urgent access to legal resources.
With the advent of Trump’s second term, Attorney General Brown recognized that the OAG would need more resources to combat what was shaping up to be an even more aggressive push to expand presidential power and encroach even further on states’ legal and policy interests, critical funding streams, and civil rights. As such, Attorney General Brown became the driving force in spearheading the creation of the Federal Accountability Unit and ensuring its mission was squarely focused on defending Maryland’s most pressing legal and policy priorities. The FAU, initially known as the Federal Litigation Unit, was later renamed to better reflect its expanded mission to include not only bringing lawsuits challenging federal government actions but also addressing federal regulatory matters and, more generally, providing OAG guidance on legal issues generated by federal actions and overreach.
The unit’s core mission is twofold: to act decisively when Maryland’s rights or resources are threatened by the federal government, and to do so in a manner that is transparent to the public.
Structure and Strategic Coordination
The FAU is comprised of several litigation attorneys and a paralegal, with professional backgrounds in both the public and private sectors spanning from the U.S. Department of Justice and the White House Counsel’s Office to state and city government. The unit operates in close collaboration with other OAG divisions and OAG counsel to various State Agencies that bring deep subjectmatter expertise to complex cases. This collaborative structure was deliberately designed under Attorney General Brown’s leadership to ensure that the FAU could draw on the full depth of expertise within the Office while maintaining a sharp litigation focus. These divisions and client agencies are essential partners, helping to identify potential legal violations, develop factual records and declarations, and craft effective arguments.
The FAU’s portfolio can be understood through three main functions. First, the unit leads or co-leads litigation, amicus briefs, and comment letters challenging unlawful federal actions with other state attorneys general offices throughout the country. Second, the FAU offers support and joins lawsuits led by other
State attorneys general’s offices to ensure that Maryland’s interests are protected. Lastly, the unit plays an advisory role, assessing legal risks, providing internal analysis, and advising on Maryland’s position in relation to potential or active federal litigation and rulemaking. The FAU works closely with the Opinions Division of the OAG on matters relating to the relationship with the federal government and its obligations, and with the Office of the Solicitor General on matters that are on appeal.
In addition to bringing legal actions, the Maryland OAG has recognized that individuals impacted by these federal actions needed urgent access to legal resources. To answer this call, OAG created a Federal Actions Response page on its website that includes vital “know your rights” information as well as links to legal aid providers, hotlines, advocacy organizations, and community service groups supporting areas such as human rights, immigration assistance, and federal worker relief. These publicly accessible materials drawn from both OAG and trusted partners offer Marylanders direct pathways to legal guidance, emergency support, and community-based assistance in response to federal actions.
Litigation Focus: Priorities and Case Examples
As of the end of August of this year, the FAU has been involved in over 36 federal lawsuits since the start of the Trump administration’s second term, taking the lead or co-lead role in five complaints. Although the work is ongoing, and litigation is fluid, the cases brought reflect Maryland’s priority areas such as healthcare access, protection of vulnerable populations, safeguarding public benefits, defending environmental standards, and ensuring the lawful administration of federal programs and funding streams. The unit receives information from client agencies and coalition partners in other states that highlights harms to the state and its residents from the federal government’s actions. This information is used to determine OAG’s specific priority areas and reflects a deliberate balancing of Maryland’s needs with the practical limits of resources. The state’s participation in multi-state coalitions was designed to amplify OAG’s impact while ensuring efforts remain strategic and
The FAU’s impact is amplified through collaboration with a nationwide network of state AG offices.
sustainable. Taking these inputs into account and guided by the best interests of the State and the entities involved, the Attorney General determines when litigation is necessary.
Healthcare and civil rights litigation have been a central focus. In Massachusetts v. Trump, Maryland joined a coalition challenging an Executive Order and related memoranda aimed at chilling the provision of gender-affirming care to minors.1 In California v. HHS, Maryland contested a provision in the federal spending bill targeting Planned Parenthood, defending access to reproductive healthcare for millions of low-income Americans.2 Other cases, such as challenges to DHS’s sharing of Medicaid and personal health data with immigration authorities, reflect the Attorney General’s commitment to protecting both privacy and access to healthcare.3
Another major area of litigation involves federal attempts to restrict or condition public benefits. In New York v. DOJ, Maryland and other states challenged the revocation of exemptions allowing noncitizens to access community programs.4 In California v. USDA, the coalition opposed the demand for states to turn over sensitive data of SNAP recipients.5 These cases underscore the FAU’s role in defending not only individual rights but also the integrity of stateadministered benefit programs.
Education and workforce development programs have also been under sustained attack, prompting swift FAU action. Maryland coled the AmeriCorps dismantlement case, resulting in a preliminary injunction restoring numerous terminated AmeriCorps programs and mandating public input before program termination.6 In other cases, Maryland joined efforts to challenge freezes on billions in education funding, cuts to children’s mental health programs, and terminations of grants designed to address teacher shortages.7 These interventions are aimed at protecting integral programs. Environmental cases range from challenging the Trump administration’s halt on wind energy approvals to contesting the misuse of FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) funds.8 These suits not only defend Maryland’s environmental commitments but also protect funding critical to climate resilience projects.
In New Jersey v. Bondi, Maryland co-led a challenge to the federal government’s settlement returning thousands of forced-reset triggers to the public, devices the ATF had previously treated as illegal machine guns.9 While the preliminary injunction was withdrawn after concessions from the federal defendants, the case remains a clear example of Maryland’s willingness to act decisively in defense of public safety.
Multistate Collaboration and Legal Strategy
The FAU’s impact is amplified through collaboration with a nationwide network of state AG offices. Maryland frequently coordinates with other state attorneys general’s offices on legal strategy. Beyond litigation, the FAU participates in comment letters that influence federal policymaking and build strong administrative records that can be leveraged in future court challenges. The unit also engages in amicus work, such as co-leading briefs in CREW v. OMB on federal budget transparency and PFLAG v. Trump on gender-affirming care, that works to shape the legal landscape even when Maryland is not a direct party to the case.10
Conclusion
The FAU’s record since the start of the Trump administration’s second term reflects both its agility and its resolve. By combining targeted litigation, strategic partnerships, and deep collaboration across state agencies, the unit has positioned Maryland as a leading voice in defending the rule of law against unlawful federal actions. Whether restoring critical education funds, safeguarding healthcare access, or protecting environmental resources, the FAU’s work has had tangible impacts for Marylanders. In doing so, it has demonstrated that a small, focused team, when empowered with the right authority and collaborative support, and driven by a clear mission, can hold the line against federal overreach and ensure that Maryland’s laws, values, and residents remain protected.
1 Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-12162 (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2025).
2 State of California v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 1:25-cv-12118 (D. Mass. July 29, 2025).
3 State of California v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Serv., No. 3:25-cv-05536 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2025).
4 State of New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 1:25-cv-00345 (D.R.I. July 21, 2025).
5 State of California v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 3:25-cv-06310 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2025).
6 State of Maryland v. Corp. for Nat’l & Cmty. Serv., No. 1:25-cv-01363 (D. Md. Apr. 29, 2025).
Mehek Singh is a second-year law student at American University Washington College of Law and a staff member of the Administrative Law Review, as well as a member of the South Asian Law Students Association. She is interested in working in government and regulatory compliance, as well as litigation practice. She is a Baltimore native and graduated from Colgate University in 2024 with a degree in international relations.
7 See State of California v. McMahon, No. 1:25-cv-00329 (D.R.I. July 14, 2025) (challenging the Dept. of Education and Office of Management and Budget for freezing $6 billion in education funding)
8 State of Washington v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, No. 1:25-cv-12006 (D. Mass. July 16, 2025).
9 State of New Jersey v. Bondi, No. 1:25-cv-01807 (D. Md. June 9, 2025).
10 See Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Office of Management and Budget, No. 1:25-cv-01051 (D.C. Cir. April 8, 2025) (amicus brief supporting greater transparency in federal budget decision-making and emphasizing the harms to states and the public from withholding critical records); PFLAG, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, No. 8:25-cv-00337 (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2025) (amicus brief addressing the impact of the challenged federal actions on LGBTQ+ individuals and families).