On August 18, 2025, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed his 37th lawsuit against the Trump administration, marking another chapter in a legal saga that has defined the relationship between the Beaver State and the federal government since the start of Donald Trump’s second presidency. In less than eight months, Oregon has filed an average of five lawsuits per month—a pace nearly six times higher than during the first year of Trump’s initial term in 2017, according to the Oregon Capital Chronicle. The latest suit, filed alongside a coalition of Democratic attorneys general in Rhode Island, challenges what state officials call a "brazen attempt" by the Trump administration to condition federal funding for crime victims on states’ cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Rayfield’s office, in partnership with 21 other Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, has become a major player in a broader multi-state legal resistance against federal overreach. The lawsuits touch on a wide range of issues: from the administration’s use of executive power to impose tariffs, to efforts to block federal funding for Planned Parenthood, to the sharing of Medicaid records with immigration enforcement, and demands for personal data about food assistance recipients. The state’s first lawsuit of Trump’s second term was filed on January 21, 2025—just one day after inauguration—in response to an executive order revoking birthright citizenship.
"If they keep skirting the law, we are going to keep suing them," Dustin Buehler, special counsel to Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, told the Capital Chronicle. "If the rights of Oregonians are at risk, or there are federal actions that are impinging on Oregon’s values, we will sue." Buehler, serving as the point person between the Oregon Department of Justice and the coalition of states, described daily coordination among attorneys general to share updates on the dozens of lawsuits that have been filed since Trump’s return to office.
One of the most recent and urgent legal challenges centers on the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) grants, a federal program established in 1984 that supports services for survivors—including counseling, emergency shelter, crisis hotlines, legal support, and compensation for medical bills, funeral expenses, and lost wages. According to the lawsuit, the Trump administration’s move to tie over $1 billion in VOCA funding to states’ cooperation with federal immigration enforcement would jeopardize critical support for millions. Between 2021 and 2024, VOCA funds assisted more than 8.5 million crime victims per year nationally, the complaint notes.
In Oregon alone, 146 victim service providers depend on VOCA grants. The proposed funding cuts could mean a loss of $15 million for these organizations. Oregon State Representative Tawna Sanchez, D-Portland, didn’t mince words about the potential impact: "VOCA funding is hugely important to the statewide domestic and sexual violence services system. The reduction in these funds is likely to have a devastating effect on the programs that serve some of the most vulnerable populations in our state."
Rayfield echoed these concerns in a statement, saying, "This is yet another attempt to place unlawful conditions on federal funds coming into Oregon to advance the President’s unpopular agenda, this time at the expense of crime victims and survivors." He added, "These grants support services like the counselor who picks up the phone at 2 a.m., the shelter bed that keeps a mom and her kids safe tonight, or the advocate who walks a victim through the court process." California Attorney General Rob Bonta, joining the multi-state effort, told reporters the states "would not be bullied or manipulated by the Trump administration," which has threatened to withhold federal funds from more than 20 so-called "sanctuary" states, cities, and counties over immigration policies.
Not everyone agrees with the states’ stance. Attorney General Pam Bondi, in an August 5 statement, argued, "Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design." Bondi’s office criticized jurisdictions that refuse to collaborate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, provide government benefits to undocumented immigrants, or withhold immigration information about jail detainees. While there’s no specific legal definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction, the administration’s position is clear: cooperation with federal immigration enforcement is, in their view, a prerequisite for receiving federal funds.
The states, for their part, argue that the administration cannot threaten to withhold money that has already been approved by Congress. The attorneys general are asking a judge to block the new restrictions, contending that the executive branch is overstepping its authority. As Buehler explained, the cost of litigation is dwarfed by the benefits: "These lawsuits have saved Oregon over $3.3 billion in federal grants and federal funding to our state agencies or state universities. It does cost taxpayers money to file these lawsuits, but it’s well worth it because of how much money is saved. The cost is just an infinitesimally small part compared to the benefit to Oregon."
Former Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, who served from 2012 to 2024, reflected on the state’s legal battles during Trump’s first term. By the end of that term, Oregon had filed 50 lawsuits, including efforts to overturn the travel ban on predominantly Muslim countries, protect abortion access, and defend the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. "To one degree or another we won all of these," Rosenblum said. But she also noted that the legal environment has become more challenging due to recent Supreme Court decisions and a judiciary reshaped by Trump’s appointments. "There were more limits on the president’s executive power by way of Congress, the courts and even the president’s own advisers. Much of that is changed, including some case law that has dramatically changed the legal landscape nationally."
Rosenblum pointed to three Supreme Court decisions in particular: the overturning of the national right to abortion, a ruling that made it harder for federal agencies to create and enforce regulations, and the decision that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution. "That’s case law that’s pretty significant," she said. "Those are just three examples of cases, but there are many others that have not been favorable to, certainly to the work that I did as attorney general."
Buehler acknowledged the changed judicial landscape, noting, "That’s in large part because President Trump confirmed a lot of judges during his first term to the federal courts. So it’s a more challenging environment in some ways, and yet for us doing nothing is not an option. We still feel like we need to defend the rights and values of Oregonians."
Despite the shifting legal terrain and mounting legal challenges, Oregon shows no signs of backing down. The state’s approach—partnering with other Democratic-led states, sharing resources, and mounting a coordinated resistance—has become a defining feature of the Trump era. Whether these lawsuits will succeed in the long run remains to be seen, but for now, Oregon’s legal strategy is clear: when the rights of its residents are at stake, it’s ready to fight in court—again and again.