American Federalism: June 2025 in Review

“This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them.”

Alexander Hamilton, New York Ratifying Convention. First Speech of June 21

Federalism Flashpoints

In June, the Federalism Policy Tracker added more than 20 new entries covering a range of critical issues—including federalization of the national guard, layoffs in the Department of Education, the Supreme Court’s end of term decisions, and new developments in the ongoing legal challenges aimed at halting or limiting President Trump’s “Agenda 47.”

I: Executive Orders

As of writing, the President has issued 164 Executive Orders, averaging approximately 0.91 executive orders per day (down from 1.04 orders per day in May).

0.91 executive orders per day, down from May

For context, during his first term, President Trump signed 55 executive orders over the entire year, averaging about 0.15 per day. President Joe Biden issued 77 executive orders his first year in 2021, averaging 0.21 per day. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, known for his extensive use of executive orders during the Great Depression, issued 569 in 1933, averaging 1.56 per day.

Executive Orders Tracker

June update: A healthy number of Executive Orders (41) are focused on foreign policy and trade. We note the high number of EOs (27) aimed at breaking down or dismantling the “Administrative State”:

II: Executive Power Pushback

In previous months, we have focused on “Spending power threats.” This month we focus on some recent examples of pushback on executive power that have implications for federalism, whether from citizens, different government branches, or state or local governments.

These are selected either because they affect states or the balance of power directly or because they have attracted public attention, debate, controversy, or legal action.

*We take no position on any particular policy.

No Kings Protests. On June 14th, which some labeled as “No Kings Day,” a nationwide series of protests was held in nearly 2,000 cities across all 50 states, coinciding with President Trump’s 79th birthday and a military parade marking the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary. Organized by a coalition including the 50501 movement, Indivisible, the ACLU, and several labor and civil rights groups, protesters gathered to protest what they described as an overexpansion of executive authority and overstepping of the separation of powers by the Trump administration.

Hannah Dugan Case. In mid-June, the trial for Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was put on hold while the court considers her motion to dismiss. Judge Dugan allegedly intercepted ICE agents in her courtroom who were attempting to arrest Eduardo Flores‑Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant facing misdemeanor charges. A week later, the FBI arrested Judge Dugan, charging her with obstructing federal agents and concealing an individual. Her defense argues she has judicial immunity for actions taken in her official capacity, and that the federal prosecution intrudes on state sovereignty. The case raises various concerns about judicial activism versus judicial independence, and is one of several examples of federal judges taking various stands against actions by the Trump Administration.

Liberation Day Tariffs. A federal court struck down Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, ruling that IEEPA does not authorize the president to unilaterally impose tariffs, stating that such powers are reserved for Congress. As a result, the court issued a permanent injunction blocking the enforcement and collection of the tariffs, marking a significant rebuke of executive overreach in trade policy. However, the decision was stayed on June 15th, allowing the tariffs to remain in place during the appeal process. Oral arguments are scheduled for July 31, 2025.

The case raises federalism concerns over how far presidential power can go in economic regulation without infringing on state interests or bypassing legislative authority. Some states claim that the tariffs will disrupt their economies, tax bases, and employment without allowing them any meaningful input or coordination, highlighting a conflict between national economic policy and state-level economic autonomy. The case has also sparked renewed calls in Congress for legislation like the Trade Review Act, which would require congressional approval for similar future tariff actions.

S.J.Res.59. The joint resolution introduced on June 16, 2025, seeks to halt all U.S. military involvement in active hostilities against Iran that lack specific congressional authorization without either a formal declaration of war or a dedicated authorization for the use of military force (AUMF). The resolution seeks to limit unilateral presidential action, reinforcing the notion that deploying military force is not an executive privilege but a shared power subject to legislative oversight, thereby emphasizing the separation of powers.

III: Congress

While much of the spotlight remains on Trump, a number of bills are currently under consideration that could have significant implications for states and for the federal structure more generally. Using Govtrack as an initial pass, we have narrowed down the top “trending” bills in June, affecting states:

IV: Developing Issues

AI Moratorium

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBB), which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in May, included a significant provision that imposes a 10-year federal moratorium on state and local regulation of artificial intelligence (AI).

This measure has sparked considerable debate regarding its implications for federalism, state authority, and the future of AI governance in the United States.

Supporters of AI preemption argue that a uniform federal approach prevents a fragmented regulatory landscape, which could hinder innovation and create compliance challenges for businesses operating across multiple states.

Critics argue that the moratorium undermines states’ abilities to protect their residents from potential AI-related harms. They also express concern over the lack of a comprehensive federal framework to replace state regulations during the moratorium period. As David S. Rubenstein, constitutional law professor at Washburn University School of Law, argues:

“Congress cannot compensate for its inability or unwillingness to regulate AI by silencing states that can.”

In June, that debate continued in the Senate, with some senators proposing a compromise that would reduce the moratorium to five years and allow states to protect children and personal likenesses; however, this was overshadowed by backlash. On June 30th, an amendment was introduced to remove the moratorium, and on July 1st, it passed in a vote of 99-1, striking it from the bill. States now retain full authority to regulate AI technology until (and unless) Congress passes a binding national AI framework.

National Guard Deployment

In June, President Trump deployed the National Guard to California after a series of protests against ICE officials to temporarily protect federal property, “ICE, and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions.”

Defenders of the action argue it was necessary to restore order and to protect federal property, especially during the surge of immigration-related protests and strained local resources. The administration maintains that the deployment is grounded in federal authority to respond to rebellion or threats to federal law enforcement. Justice Department lawyers further contend that the president’s power to federalize Guard units is unreviewable by courts, asserting that active-duty troops and Guard members were used only to “provide force protection and logistical support,” not general law enforcement. They emphasize that such moves are permissible even without state consent when protecting federal interests or responding to what it deems an insurrectionist threat.

The federalization of the National Guard under Title 10 has not happened since 1992 (which ironically also happened in Los Angeles). However, what has made the move controversial is that the deployment was done without the consent of Governor Newsom. As CNN noted:

“This invocation of presidential powers that have remained dormant for decades signifies an escalation that challenges both state authority and long-established standards, some experts and political leaders say.”

The legality of the action, as well as questions on federal overreach, has raised an important debate in the federalism world (for more commentary, see the “read more” section below).

Following the federalization of the National Guard, Governor Newsom sued the Trump Administration, arguing that the action was unconstitutional and violated statutory restrictions. On June 12th, Judge Bryer ruled the action unconstitutional and issued a temporary restraining order. However, only hours after that ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals placed a pause on the order and later extended it. The move allowed President Trump to retain control of the National Guard.

Other states and local governments have also taken action in the wake of the deployment. Over 50 local governments from across the country have filed an amicus brief in support of California. Additionally, Oregon has introduced a bill that would restrict when and how the state’s National Guard can be federally activated. We will be watching to see if similar legislation is proposed in other states.

Meanwhile, Congress has introduced legislation of its own in support of the federal government. Known as the Guard Act, H.R.4080 would authorize the President to federalize and deploy National Guard units for immigration enforcement when states refuse to cooperate.

President Trump’s second term, perhaps unlike any other president in American history, is also putting a spotlight on the Courts. As one commenter put it,

“No modern president has done more in his first 130 days than President Trump-only to have much of it undone, at least temporarily, by the courts.”

On average, the Trump Administration has filed at least 1 emergency appeal to the Supreme Court each week. As for the Supreme Court, it remains to be seen how or to what extent it may act as a “safeguard” of federalism and Constitutional structure more broadly.

All the decisions from this Supreme Court term have been released (with 32 being released in June). In early July it is expected that the Court will release more cases to be heard during the 2025OT. Additionally, now that the Court’s latest term is over, we will be watching to see how many (and how frequently) emergency applications are decided in the interim.

Executive Actions

As of June 30th, the President has signed 164 Executive Orders. By comparison, the President had signed ~39 Executive Orders by this point in the first term. This blistering pace of executive action is matched only by the number of legal actions and complaints, also at record levels.

According to Just Security’s litigation tracker, there have been 289 lawsuits against the Trump administration as a whole.
AP News has tallied that 98 Executive Actions have been partially or fully blocked, with 78 pending, and 62 left in effect by federal judges.

At this pace, combining various lawsuits and multistate actions, there are now on average 2 lawsuits per day being filed against President Trump and his administration.

2 lawsuits per day being filed against President Trump and his administration.

June Overview

In June, President Trump signed 7 Executive Orders, 2 memorandums, 4 notices, 0 determinations, and 9 proclamations.

At least two have clear federalism implications, as below:

For information on executive orders over time, see our “Executive Orders“ primer. For a complete list of all Executive Orders see our new Executive Order Tracker: https://www.federalismindex.org/executive-order-tracker

Agencies

Federal agencies create regulations through a structured process known as rule-making, which is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946. In theory, this process helps to ensure transparency, public participation, and accountability in the development of federal regulations.

The Trump administration has added an average of 912 pages each week to the Federal Register for a total of 20,984 pages for the year to date.

This includes 602 proposed rules and 932 final rules.

602 proposed rules and 932 final rules

Below, we include an updated list of agencies with the most regulatory and deregulatory actions at the advanced state (currently under review):

Here are a few agency actions worth highlighting:

White House Keeps Michigan Coal Plants Open: Michigan regulators and industry leaders had plans to shut down two power plants over environmental and ratepayer concerns. The US Department of Energy ordered both plants toremain open, citing grid reliability concerns. Read more here
DOJ Sues Maryland’s Active Federal Judges: AG Pam Bondi has filed a lawsuit targeting all 15 active federal judges in Maryland. The suit challenges a standing order, issued by Chief Judge George L. Russell III in May, which automatically halts deportations for immigrants who file habeas corpus petitions, pausing removals for 48 hours after filing. Bondi contends that the judiciary improperly interferes with presidential immigration authority and “robs the Executive Branch” of its prerogatives through the use of nationwide injunctions. Learn more here
Trump Seeks to Expand Deportations in Democratic Run Cities: President Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to direct ICE to expand their deportations in larger cities, such as Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago. Find out more here

For more on regulations and how they affect American federalism, see our Regulations primer here

Brookings has a regulatory tracker that provides limited analysis of a few select regulatory and deregulatory changes made by the Trump administration. View the tracker here.

DOGE

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established via Executive Order 14158 on January 20, 2025, and formalized through EO 14218 on February 19, 2025, represents an ambitious experiment in fixing the federal bureaucracy’s transparency problems, as well as overseeing an administrative restructuring that aims at achieving a $1 trillion reduction in federal spending.

As of June 25th, DOGE claimed an estimated $29.4B in regulatory savings, the cancellation of 11,042 contracts resulting in $34 billion in savings, with an overall total of $180 billion in savings.

…an overall total of $180 billion in savings.

While it is hard to fault DOGE for not doing more, critics point out that the pace lags Musk’s goal of $1 trillion in savings and reducing the federal government by around 75%.

Congress

As of writing (June 27th), there are at least7,464 bills and resolutions currently before Congress. Of these bills and resolutions, 230 had a significant vote in one chamber recently, giving them a “greater than zero” probability of passing.

In June, 6 bills were enacted.
There were at least 37 passed resolutions.
- 100 resolutions were introduced under the CRA to overturn Biden-era regulations, with 16 enacted.

This brings the current total of enacted bills to 36 for this session, compared to 614 in total last session.

36 enacted bills for this session, compared to 614 in total last session

Federalism Implications

Among the resolutions and bills more likely to pass (with more than a zero percent chance of becoming law), here are a few with federalism implications:

H.R.4080: The Guard Act would authorize the President to federalize and deploy National Guard units for immigration enforcement when states refuse to cooperate.
S.1582: One of the provisions of the GENIUS Act establishes a Stablecoin Certification Review Committee (federal and state regulators) to evaluate state regimes within 180 days, enabling states to maintain oversight of local issuers.
HJRes 88: The resolution revokes three Biden-era waivers under the Clean Air Act, effectively blocking California’s mandate to phase out gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035.

Judiciary

In June, the Supreme Court heard 0 cases, decided 13 emergency applications, and issued 32 opinions.

Cases Decided (with Federalism Implications)

United States v. Skrmetti: In a 6–3 decision, the Court found that a Tennessee law (SB1), which bans certain medical procedures for transgender minors, is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, but rather to rational basis review. The Court upheld the Sixth Circuit’s decision, which had previously upheld the Tennessee law. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts stated that the Court’s role is “only to ensure that” the law “does not violate” the Equal Protection Clause. “Having concluded that it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”

Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission: In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Court found that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment by denying Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. a tax exemption from the state’s unemployment program. The Court found that Wisconsin’s requirement for religious organizations to proselytize or limit services to qualify as “primarily religious” discriminated based on theological lines, failing strict scrutiny review. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision was reversed and remanded for further review and argument.

Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA: In a 7–2 decision, the Court found that fuel producers, including Diamond Alternative Energy, have standing to sue the EPA and the state of California over its fuel and emissions regulations. Justice Kavanaugh noted that the opinion does not address the merits of California’s regulations and remanded the case to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the finding that the parties have standing.

Trump v. CASA, Inc.: In a 6-3 decision, the Court granted the government’s applications to partially stay the district court’s nationwide injunctions in the birthright citizenship cases. The Court allowed the Trump administration to partially enforce the Executive Order while proceedings move forward in lower courts. The Court did not decide the legality of birthright citizenship as a whole. The Court also narrowed the scope of ‘universal injunctions’, finding that they exceed the powers Congress has given to the federal courts. Writing for the majority, Justice Barrett said, “Some say that the universal injunction ‘give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch’. But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.” Writing for the dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote, “By stripping all federal courts, including itself, of that [equity] power, the Court kneecaps the Judiciary’s authority to stop the Executive from enforcing even the most unconstitutional policies.”

Mahmoud v. Taylor: In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled in favor of a group of parents, finding that Montgomery County Public Schools violated their First Amendment rights by requiring schoolchildren to participate in LGBTQ+-inclusive lessons and storybooks without the choice of an ‘opt-out’ for religious belief. The Court granted a preliminary injunction, halting the enforcement of the school district policy until the case is fully decided. The Court also remanded the case to lower courts for further proceedings holding that the policy likely imposed a substantial burden on the parents’ free exercise of religion.

FCC v. Consumers’ Research: In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld Congress’ delegation to the FCC, ruling that the FCC’s authority to set carrier contributions to the Universal Service Fund is appropriately guided by clear statutory principles – like “equitable and nondiscriminatory” fees and ensuring subsidies are “sufficient” but not excessive. The Court also found that the FCC did not improperly delegate authority to a private administrator. The Court reserved the judgement of the Fourth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.: In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are ‘inferior officers’ and their appointments are fully consistent with the Appointments Clause. Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh said, “The structure of the Task Force and the manner of appointing its officers preserve the chain of political accountability that was central to the Framers’ design of the Appointments Clause: The Task Force members were appointed by and are supervised and directed by the Secretary of HHS. And the Secretary of HHS, in turn, answers to the President of the United States.”

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic: In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that Medicaid beneficiaries cannot sue state officials over South Carolina’s exclusion of Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. Medicaid law requires states to allow patients to see any qualified provider, but the Court found that this provision does not clearly create a private right to sue under federal law.

Upcoming:

The Court decided to push back a decision in the Louisiana v. Callais, which concerns the legality of a state congressional voting map that created a second Black-majority district. The Court gave no reason for the pushback of the case, only that they would hear new arguments in the fall.

The Court officially ended its October 2024-2025 term and will continue to hear cases starting October of 2025.

A complete list of cases for the new term can be found here.
SCOTUSBlog has also released their annual post-term “stat pack”, which includes their “data-driven analysis of the Supreme Court’s term and identifies trends over time.” All the data can be found here.

State Supreme Courts

State supreme courts have issued over 4,126 opinions in 2025. That is the equivalent of roughly 24 opinions per day.

These cases cover a variety of topics, including:

Voting Rights and Election: Republican National Committee v. Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc; Georgia v. Eternal Vigilance Action, Stein v. Berger,
Reproductive Rights: Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State (Planned Parenthood 1), Isaacson v. Arizona, Doe v. Uthmeier,
Speech and Religion: Grube v. Trader; State v. Rogan, Paxton v. Annunciation House, Care and Prevention of Eve, and Perez v. City of San Antonio,

States

Although most attention has been centered on the actions of the Executive, it is worth remembering that states remain the most important site of most legislation, even in this era of the so-called “imperial presidency.” As of writing, there are currently more than 149,750 bills and resolutions across the 50 state legislatures.

In many ways, states continue to be “the first branch of government.” States have been actively working on ways to improve and control the “administrative state” in their own state capitals. A recent tool from Ballotpedia is currently tracking 1,948 state bills in areas including nondelegation, judicial deference, executive control of agencies, procedural rights, and agency dynamics.

Although it will be tempting to focus on national headlines in 2025, states should continue taking the lead – pushing for balance, coordinating with other states, and taking part in public education on Federalism issues. Some notable state actions this past month include:

California National Guard Lawsuit: Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a federal lawsuit against President Trump over the federalization and deployment of the California National Guard without the governor’s consent. The national guard deployment was in response to protests against federal immigration raids in Los Angeles. However, the lawsuit argues that it violates constitutional principles and statutory restrictions. View the latest update here
Oregon National Guard Bill: HB 3954 would restrict when and how the state’s National Guard can be federally activated. Proponents argue that this restores the intended balance under the Tenth Amendment, ensuring the Guard remains focused on state-mandated missions and not absorbed into federal law enforcement efforts. Learn more here
Wisconsin Bill Package: Wisconsin Democrats have introduced a package of bills that would allow the state to withhold payments to the federal government if federal funds are cut and create protections against federal access to sensitive state-collected data, including information on students and immigrants. Read more here
Texas Agrees to End In-State Tuition for Dreamers: The DOJ sued Texas on June 4, 2025, claiming the state’s long-standing policy of granting undocumented students in-state tuition violated federal law by discriminating against out-of-state U.S. citizens. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joined the lawsuit and quickly agreed to end the policy, directing public universities to classify affected students as out-of-state residents, effectively ending in-state tuition eligibility. Find out more here

Multistate Lawsuits

There are at least 30 multistate lawsuits against the Trump administration. Comparing second-term lawsuits (dating back to 1980), Trump has surpassed Reagan (16) and Clinton (24), but remains behind G.W. Bush (41) and Obama (55).

Some recent multistate lawsuits include:

Defunding of Public Media: 23 states have formed a coalition supporting legal challenges filed by NPR, PBS, and state public radio stations to block Executive Order 14290, issued May 1, 2025, directing the CPB to defund federal grants to NPR and PBS by the end of the fiscal year. Learn more here
Department of Education Layoffs: A coalition of states, school districts, and teachers’ unions has filed briefs urging the Supreme Court not to block a federal injunction that reinstates nearly 1,400 laid-off Department of Education employees. They argue that the injunction reflects the states’ deep stake in ensuring the federal government maintains its ability to administer federal aid, enforce civil rights in schools, and support special education programs. Read more here
DOT Withholding Funds Blocked: 20 states have won a preliminary injunction against the Department of Transportation’s policy that cut federal transportation funds to states that refused to cooperate with immigration enforcement. Learn more here

Trends in State Policy

On June 10th, HB10 was enacted, making New Hampshire the 26th state to establish a parental bill of rights. These state laws grant parents specific rights regarding the care and upbringing of their children, and the content of these laws can vary from state to state. However, education is commonly included in these Parents’ Bills of Rights. According to Ballotpedia, 17 states with Republican trifectas have adopted a Parental Bill of Rights, while 2 with Democratic Trifectas and 7 with divided governments have done so.

Get in Touch!

What issues matter to you most? What policies are you watching in your state? What did we miss? Contact the NFC!

Authors: Johana Linford and Noah Farnsworth

Order #	Description	Federalism Impact
	EO 14310 represents the third 90-day extension of the TikTok enforcement moratorium, keeping the app operational in the U.S. while negotiations or divestiture efforts continue under the Act.	Critics argue Trump’s repeated extensions lack legal authority under the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which allows only one 90-day extension, only if a binding divestiture deal is in progress.
	EO 14308 aims to make federal wildfire support more agile, locally responsive, and technologically advanced, while empowering communities to take proactive measures to prevent and manage wildfires more effectively.	The order also encourages state, tribal, local, and federal agencies to work jointly, sharing data and response plans to boost overall readiness.