Yes. States can sue the federal government, and they do so routinely. The question of whether states can sue the federal government has a settled answer in American law: Congress and the Constitution have opened enough doors through sovereign immunity that state attorneys general file challenges to federal regulations, executive orders, and funding decisions as a regular part of their work. The harder questions are procedural, which court, which legal theory, and whether the state can show it has been injured in the way the law requires.
Sovereign Immunity and the Waivers That Matter
The federal government, like every sovereign, cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent.1Legal Information Institute. Sovereign Immunity That consent exists, but only in specific forms, and the form matters because it defines what a state can ask a court to do.
The waiver that drives most state lawsuits is the Administrative Procedure Act. Under 5 U.S.C. § 702, anyone suffering a legal wrong because of agency action is entitled to judicial review, and a suit seeking something other than money damages cannot be dismissed just because it names the United States.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 5 USC 702 – Right of Review When a state challenges an EPA rule, a Department of Education grant condition, or a new immigration directive, it is almost always suing under the APA.
There is a timing rule attached. Only “final agency action” is reviewable, and only when no other adequate court remedy exists.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 5 USC 704 – Actions Reviewable A state cannot sue over a draft rule or an internal debate; it has to wait for a definitive agency decision.
Constitutional claims operate on a separate track. When a state argues that a federal statute or executive action violates the Constitution, no sovereign immunity doctrine protects the government from that claim. The Constitution is the supreme law, and a suit to enforce it does not need a statutory waiver.
One boundary worth naming: the Federal Tort Claims Act waives immunity for damages caused by negligent federal employees acting within their job duties.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1346 – United States as Defendant It rarely figures in the policy disputes that make headlines. If a state is challenging a rule, a regulation, or a presidential policy, the FTCA is not the vehicle.
Standing: The State Has to Be the Right Plaintiff
A valid legal theory is not enough. The state has to show it has standing to bring the case. The three-part test from Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) applies in every federal lawsuit:5Legal Information Institute. Overview of the Lujan Test
- Injury in fact. A concrete, particularized harm that is actual or imminent. For a state, this often takes the form of lost tax revenue, higher costs for state programs, or damage to state-owned resources.
- Causation. The injury has to trace back to the federal action, not to the independent choices of some third party.
- Redressability. A ruling in the state’s favor has to be likely to fix or reduce the harm.
Special Solicitude for States
States get a thumb on the scale that private plaintiffs do not. In Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the Supreme Court said states are “not normal litigants for the purposes of invoking federal jurisdiction” and are entitled to “special solicitude” in standing analysis because of their quasi-sovereign interests.6Library of Congress. Massachusetts v EPA, 549 US 497 (2007) In practice, courts apply a somewhat more lenient standard when evaluating whether a state has shown injury, causation, and redressability.
Parens Patriae
States have a second route through the parens patriae doctrine, which lets a state sue on behalf of its citizens’ well-being when the state’s quasi-sovereign interests are at stake.7Legal Information Institute. Parens Patriae The term means “parent of the country.” Under this theory, a state does not have to show harm to itself as an institution. It argues that a federal action is harming a large segment of its population and that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting them. States have invoked parens patriae in environmental, consumer protection, and public health cases.
Constitutional Claims and the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine
Alongside APA challenges, states frequently sue the federal government on constitutional grounds. The most distinctive of these is the anti-commandeering doctrine, grounded in the Tenth Amendment. In New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot commandeer state regulatory processes by ordering states to enact or administer a federal program. In Printz v. United States (1997), the Court applied the same principle to strike down provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act that required local law enforcement to run background checks on handgun buyers.8Library of Congress. Amdt10.4.2 Anti-Commandeering Doctrine
When a state believes the federal government is forcing it to implement a federal program or blocking it from enacting its own laws, this is the doctrine behind the complaint.
Where the Lawsuit Goes
The state’s attorney general is the official who files and manages these cases. The AG’s office decides which challenges to bring, builds the legal team, and picks the courthouse. That last choice carries weight.
Federal District Court
Nearly all state suits against the federal government start in a federal district court. The federal venue statute allows filing in any district where the agency is located, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or where the plaintiff resides.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1391 – Venue Generally A state “resides” in any district within its borders, which gives attorneys general real latitude. Different circuits have different track records on executive power and agency deference, and the choice of district often shapes the trajectory of the case. Critics call it forum shopping. Defenders say it is a rational use of the rules Congress wrote.
From there, either side can appeal to the regional U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and then petition the Supreme Court. Most cases end at the district or circuit level.
Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction
Article III grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases “in which a State shall be Party.”10Legal Information Institute. Article III In practice the Court exercises this power sparingly and primarily in disputes between two states, like border and water-rights conflicts.11Legal Information Institute. US Constitution Article III Section II Clause II – Original Jurisdiction A state suing the federal government almost always starts in the district court system.
What a State Can Actually Win
Under 5 U.S.C. § 706, a reviewing court can compel agency action that has been unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed, and it can set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to constitutional rights, beyond statutory authority, or made without following required procedures.12Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 5 USC 706 – Scope of Review “Arbitrary and capricious” is the standard states invoke most often. It requires the agency to have engaged in reasoned decision-making and not made a clear error of judgment.
The usual remedy is an injunction. The APA’s waiver covers relief “other than money damages,” so injunctive and declaratory orders do the work.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 5 USC 702 – Right of Review Courts tell the federal government to stop enforcing a rule, start taking an action, or redo the decision. States do not typically walk away with a check.
Nationwide Injunctions
In some cases a single district judge has blocked a federal policy not just for the state that sued, but for the entire country. These nationwide injunctions have halted presidential actions on immigration, vaccine mandates, and environmental regulation. Supporters say they prevent widespread harm from an illegal policy. Critics say they let one judge set national policy on a limited record. The Supreme Court has been weighing challenges to how far these injunctions can reach, and the law in this area continues to move.13Congressional Research Service. Supreme Court Hears Challenges to Nationwide Injunctions
Where These Fights Usually Happen
State lawsuits against the federal government cluster around predictable flashpoints.
- Environmental regulation. States challenge federal rules on emissions, water quality, and energy. Some argue the rules are too weak, others that they are too burdensome. Massachusetts v. EPA itself was a challenge to the EPA’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
- Healthcare. Twenty-six states challenged the Affordable Care Act and won a Supreme Court ruling that Congress could not threaten to withhold all existing Medicaid funding to coerce states into expanding the program.
- Immigration. States across the political spectrum have sued over federal enforcement, some arguing federal inaction forces them to absorb costs, others arguing aggressive enforcement interferes with state priorities.
- Federal funding conditions. When new strings get attached to grants, states frequently sue. In early 2026, several states challenged the Department of Health and Human Services over a $600 million cut in CDC grants tied to state positions on immigration enforcement and other policies.
- Education. States have challenged executive actions on student loan forgiveness from both directions, arguing the administration either exceeded its authority or added restrictions Congress never authorized.
- Elections. The Constitution gives states primary authority over election administration, and states push back when federal action encroaches on that role.
Multi-State Coalitions
States rarely go in alone on a major federal challenge. Attorneys general from multiple states routinely form coalitions, pooling legal resources and political weight. A suit filed by one state is easy to brush off as partisan. A suit filed by 20 states is harder to dismiss.
Coalitions usually form along ideological lines, though bipartisan groupings appear on issues like antitrust and online privacy. Coordination often runs through the National Association of Attorneys General, which has facilitated multi-state litigation since at least 1907. The coalition model is now the default for major challenges to federal executive action, regardless of which party holds the White House.