In Jefferson City, Missouri, the state’s attorney general is making headlines with bold legal moves against major entities. The state’s top legal officer, Andrew Bailey, has stated his intention to seize Chinese-owned assets to enforce a $24.5 billion lawsuit verdict against China over COVID-19’s impact. While the feasibility of actually collecting such a sum is questionable, the move underscores a broader campaign.
Bailey, a Republican, has been actively pursuing cases that align with conservative ideologies. Recently, he sued Starbucks, accusing the coffee giant of discriminating against white men in its hiring practices, a lawsuit that some view as more symbolic than winnable. This legal action is part of a wider attack on the diversity and inclusion initiatives championed by liberals and supported by Democratic legal officers.
In recent times, the role of attorneys general has expanded significantly beyond traditional law enforcement and consumer protection. They have increasingly taken center stage in opposing federal policies from presidents of the opposite political party. These officials have become major advocates for a variety of causes, with Bailey being particularly notable for his prolific activity in this area.
A spotlight on national politics has transformed what were once considered lower-profile offices. Historically, attorneys general focused on crime-fighting, consumer protection, and removing corrupt local officials. However, recent decades have seen a rise in high-profile lawsuits and public demands on national issues. According to North Dakota’s Drew Wrigley, also a Republican, states are compelled to challenge federal actions that they see as overreaching, particularly under the Biden administration.
The trend began to take shape in the 1990s when a coalition of attorneys general successfully sued tobacco companies, resulting in a massive settlement. Paul Nolette, a political scientist from Marquette University, notes that this empowered attorneys general to influence national matters despite the actions of Congress or the executive branch. Legal challenges continued under successive administrations, with Republican A.G.s opposing Obama and Democratic A.G.s taking on Trump.
Legal maneuvers may sometimes be dismissed as political stunts, but they can yield significant political dividends. In Pennsylvania, Democratic Attorney General Josh Shapiro leveraged his legal challenges against Trump’s policies to win the governorship. Meanwhile, Kris Kobach of Kansas revived his career through his election as attorney general by promising to challenge Biden’s policies.
In Missouri, Bailey follows in the footsteps of predecessors who have successfully leveraged the role to advance to the U.S. Senate. His high-profile legal actions even earned him consideration for a position in the Trump administration, although the appointment didn’t materialize.
The legal campaign against China is one of many initiatives Missouri has pursued. Bailey has targeted a variety of policies and entities, including private companies and state policies related to bathroom use in gyms and school activities. Additionally, under his watch, Missouri joined several lawsuits against the Biden administration, covering issues ranging from immigration to environmental regulations.
Moreover, Bailey has not limited his focus to federal policy alone. He has also taken aim at private companies over perceived violations of state and federal laws. In his lawsuit against Starbucks, he claims the company’s diversity initiatives effectively impose quotas that disadvantage white male employees. Starbucks has yet to respond to these allegations.
While some critics may view Bailey’s legal actions as overreaching, supporters believe they could lead to meaningful change, even if not all suits are successful. These legal battles might impact behavior and delay targeted policies, suggesting that state attorneys general like Bailey play a significant role in shaping political and social discourse.
