Colorado has stepped into two separate legal battles against the Trump administration, challenging federal decisions related to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding and the executive branch’s authority to impose tariffs. The state’s attorney general joined coalitions of other states in filing these lawsuits, arguing that the administration has overstepped its legal boundaries in both cases.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser announced the state’s participation in the two multistate lawsuits, framing both actions as necessary steps to protect Colorado residents and uphold constitutional limits on executive power. The legal challenges come at a time when several states have been increasingly willing to take the federal government to court over policy decisions they view as unlawful or harmful to their populations.
The first lawsuit centers on the Trump administration’s decision to withhold or redirect TANF funds. TANF is a federal block grant program that provides financial assistance to low-income families with children, helping them cover basic needs such as food, housing, and childcare. States rely on this funding to administer their own assistance programs, and any disruption to the flow of those dollars can have immediate consequences for vulnerable families.
Colorado and the other states involved in the TANF lawsuit argue that the administration does not have the legal authority to unilaterally alter how these funds are distributed or to impose new conditions on their use without congressional approval. The plaintiffs contend that such actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and undermine the statutory framework Congress established when it created the TANF program. For Colorado, the stakes are concrete – thousands of families depend on TANF-supported services, and any reduction or redirection of those funds could leave people without critical support.
The second lawsuit takes on a broader and arguably more consequential question: whether the president has the authority to impose sweeping tariffs without explicit congressional authorization. The Trump administration has used emergency economic powers to justify a series of tariff actions, arguing that national security and economic threats give the executive branch wide latitude to act. The states challenging this position disagree sharply.
Colorado and its co-plaintiffs argue that the Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the power to regulate commerce and set tariff policy. While Congress has delegated some trade authority to the executive branch over the decades, the states contend that the administration has stretched those delegations far beyond what the law permits. The lawsuit seeks to have the courts draw a clearer line around presidential tariff authority, which the plaintiffs say has been used in ways that harm state economies, raise costs for consumers and businesses, and create uncertainty in supply chains.
The tariff lawsuit reflects a growing concern among state governments and legal scholars that the executive branch has been accumulating trade powers that were never intended to rest with a single office. Colorado’s participation signals that the state views this not just as a policy disagreement but as a structural constitutional problem that courts need to address.
Both lawsuits place Colorado alongside a number of other Democratic-led states that have been active in challenging Trump administration policies through litigation. This approach – using the courts as a check on federal executive action – has become a defining feature of the political and legal landscape during periods of divided governance between state and federal leadership.
Critics of the lawsuits argue that states are using litigation as a political tool rather than a genuine legal remedy, and that the administration’s actions fall within the scope of executive authority. Supporters of the legal challenges counter that the courts are precisely the right venue for resolving disputes about the limits of federal power, and that states have both the standing and the responsibility to bring such cases when they believe federal actions harm their residents.
For Colorado residents, the practical implications of these lawsuits could be significant. If the TANF case succeeds, it could protect funding streams that support low-income families across the state. If the tariff case prevails, it could limit the administration’s ability to impose trade measures that drive up prices on goods ranging from consumer electronics to agricultural inputs – costs that ultimately fall on Colorado businesses and households.
The outcomes of both cases are uncertain, and legal proceedings of this nature typically move slowly through the courts. Appeals are likely regardless of how lower courts rule, meaning final resolution could take months or years. In the meantime, Colorado has made clear through its participation in these lawsuits that it intends to use every available legal avenue to push back against federal actions it views as unlawful.
Attorney General Weiser has framed both cases as part of a broader commitment to defending the rule of law and protecting the interests of Coloradans, regardless of which party controls the White House. The dual legal challenges reflect the ongoing tension between state governments and the Trump administration over the boundaries of federal authority – a tension that shows no signs of easing.