The attorney general is the chief legal officer in every state: the top lawyer responsible for representing the state in court, enforcing consumer protection laws, and serving as a check on both the governor and the federal government. Once a low-profile position, the AG has become one of the most consequential offices in state politics as partisan coalitions of AGs have used multi-state lawsuits to reshape federal policy and corporate behavior.
The Dual-Client Problem
The single most important thing to understand about the attorney general is this: the AG serves two masters. The attorney general represents both the state government and the public interest, and those two clients do not always want the same thing. A governor may want a legal outcome that protects the administration's policy agenda. Consumers, taxpayers, or the environment may demand the opposite. The AG is the only statewide officer who must weigh both sides.
This dual-client relationship is the foundation for everything else about the office. It explains why AGs can contradict the governor. It explains why AGs launch investigations into industries that the legislature has been slow to regulate. And it explains why the office has become a vehicle for ambitious legal action on issues from opioids to big tech, often in ways that neither the governor nor the legislature initiated.
The Role of the Attorney General
The attorney general's responsibilities fall into three broad categories. First, the AG serves as the chief legal counsel to the state government, advising the governor, the legislature, and state agencies on legal questions. Second, the AG represents the state in litigation, both as plaintiff and defendant, in state and federal court. Third, the AG enforces civil and criminal law, overseeing prosecutions that cross county lines or involve statewide significance.
The dual mandate described above gives AGs sweeping authority. Consumer protection is a core function: AGs investigate fraud, enforce antitrust laws, regulate deceptive business practices, and recover money for consumers. Environmental enforcement has grown as a major area of AG activity, with state AGs stepping in where they believe federal regulators have fallen short. Child support enforcement, Medicaid fraud, and opioid litigation are other areas where AGs have taken the lead.
The AG also possesses what legal scholars describe as "quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial" responsibilities. Through formal opinions, the AG interprets state law in ways that can have the practical effect of legislation. Through enforcement discretion, the AG decides which cases to bring and which to decline, shaping policy without ever passing a bill.
Perhaps most consequential is the AG's common law authority. Unlike most government officials, who can only exercise powers the legislature has granted, the AG in many states retains inherent authority inherited from the English common law tradition. This means the AG can initiate legal action to protect the public interest even when no statute specifically authorizes it, a power that has fueled the modern era of multi-state litigation against industries from tobacco to tech.
Independence from the Governor
In 48 of 50 states, the attorney general operates independently of the governor. The AG does not serve at the governor's pleasure and cannot be removed for policy disagreements. Only Alaska and Wyoming allow the governor to remove the attorney general at will. This independence is by design: the framers of most state constitutions wanted the state's chief legal officer to exercise independent legal judgment rather than serve as a political extension of the governor's office.
The key structural difference from the federal system is how the AG gets the job. The U.S. Attorney General is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, creating at least an expectation of alignment with the administration. But in 43 states, the AG is elected by the voters on a separate ballot line from the governor, meaning the two officials may represent different parties, different constituencies, and different legal philosophies. The result is that state AGs can and do take legal positions that contradict the governor's policy agenda, investigate executive branch agencies, or refuse to defend laws the governor signed.
North Carolina: The AG Who Refused to Defend the Governor's Law
In 2016, then-AG Roy Cooper (D) refused to defend House Bill 2, the controversial "bathroom bill" signed by Gov. Pat McCrory (R). Cooper argued the law was unconstitutional and declined to represent the state in court, leaving the governor to hire outside counsel at taxpayer expense. In Maine, Gov. Paul LePage (R) went even further, suing the state's AG, Janet Mills (D), for refusing to pursue legal actions he favored. These conflicts illustrate that the AG's independence is not just theoretical; it can produce real governing friction.
The AG and the Legislature
The attorney general's relationship with the legislature is more complex than it might appear. Legislatures grant AGs statutory authority over specific areas of enforcement and can expand or restrict that authority through new legislation. Some legislatures have pushed back against perceived AG overreach by restricting the AG's ability to hire outside counsel for contingency-fee lawsuits. Indiana, for example, passed a law in 2023 barring the AG from collecting contingency fees when using outside counsel, and several other states have adopted versions of the Private Attorney Retention Sunshine Act, model legislation that requires legislative oversight of large contingency-fee contracts between the AG and private law firms. These power struggles tend to intensify when the AG and the legislative majority represent different parties.
How Attorneys General Are Selected
The method by which a state selects its attorney general says a great deal about how that state views the office. An elected AG answers to the voters and can pursue an independent agenda. An appointed AG answers to whoever appointed them — the governor, the legislature, or the courts — and their independence depends on the norms and legal protections surrounding the appointment.
- 43 states elect their AG by popular vote. All serve four-year terms except Vermont, where the attorney general serves a two-year term.
- 5 states have their AG appointed by the governor: Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Wyoming. New Hampshire requires approval by the Executive Council.
- 1 state elects its AG through the legislature: Maine, where the full legislature votes in joint session to select the attorney general.
- 1 state has its AG appointed by the courts: Tennessee, where the state supreme court appoints the attorney general to an eight-year term, the longest term of any AG in the country.
States That Changed Their Selection Method
No state has ever moved back from elected to appointed. The trend toward popular election began in the early 1800s as part of the Jacksonian Democratic movement, which pushed for direct election of state executive officers including judges, district attorneys, secretaries of state, and attorneys general. This populist wave swept through most states over the 19th century, and a few states made the transition as recently as the 1970s.
| State | Change | Year | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | Office created as elected | 1897 | No prior AG office; established as an elected position |
| Delaware | Governor-appointed to elected | 1897 | Appointed 1776–1897; new constitution made it elected |
| Georgia | State executive to elected | 1868 | Georgia Constitution of 1868 established popular election |
| Illinois | Governor-appointed to elected | 1978 | Constitutional amendment established popular election |
| Michigan | Governor-appointed to elected | 1950 | Constitutional amendment |
| Missouri | Appointed to elected | 1865 | 1820 Constitution provided for appointment; 1865 Constitution switched to elected |
| New York | Various to elected | 1892 | Has elected AG since 1892 |
| Oregon | Office created as elected | 1891 | Established by state legislature as an elected position |
| Pennsylvania | Governor-appointed to elected | 1978 | Voters approved constitutional amendment (same year as Illinois) |
| Wisconsin | Office created as elected | 1850 | Established by state legislature as an elected position |
Several of the remaining appointed states have considered making the switch. New Jersey lawmakers have introduced a constitutional amendment that would make the AG an elected position. In Tennessee, state Sen. Mae Beavers introduced resolutions across multiple sessions to replace the court-appointed system with popular election, but the effort stalled when several lawyer-legislators objected to the idea of an elected AG.
The Rising Influence of State Attorneys General
The attorney general was once a largely invisible office. The AG reviewed contracts, issued legal opinions, and represented the state in routine litigation. That began to change in the 1990s.
The Tobacco Settlement: How AGs Changed the Game
In the mid-1990s, a coalition of state AGs brought the landmark lawsuit against the tobacco industry that resulted in the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, a $206 billion deal that reshaped public health policy and demonstrated the extraordinary power of coordinated state legal action. The tobacco litigation was notable for a reason that is easy to forget today: it was bipartisan. AGs from both parties joined the lawsuit. That cross-party cooperation reflected an era when AG-led litigation was seen as law enforcement, not politics. The shift to partisan AG coalitions happened gradually over the following decade, driven by the same polarization that reshaped Congress and state legislatures.
By the 2010s, the pattern had changed completely. AGs from the same party now routinely coordinate lawsuits against the federal government's policies or against large corporations, often with explicit partisan framing. Democratic AGs challenged the Trump administration's immigration orders, environmental rollbacks, and healthcare policies. Republican AGs challenged the Obama and Biden administrations on the Affordable Care Act, EPA regulations, and vaccine mandates. AG-led lawsuits have become a crucial part of the American regulatory landscape, filling gaps left by federal inaction, challenging federal overreach, and holding corporations accountable in ways that no single state could accomplish alone.
Two organizations sit at the center of this partisan coordination: the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA). These groups raise money for AG candidates, coordinate legal strategy across states, and serve as the organizational infrastructure for multi-state lawsuits. Their influence has grown steadily, turning AG races into nationalized contests where the legal direction of the country is at stake.
The AG as a Check on Federal Power
The dynamic is particularly potent when opposing-party AGs challenge the sitting president's policies. A coalition of 20 or more state AGs filing suit in a favorable federal court can halt a federal regulation, block an executive order, or force a policy change, often before the policy ever takes full effect. This has made state AGs one of the most effective checks on presidential power in the modern era, more nimble and aggressive than Congress in many cases.
The scope of AG-led litigation extends well beyond the federal government. State AGs have pursued major antitrust cases against tech companies, led opioid litigation that produced nearly $60 billion in settlements, challenged corporate data privacy practices, and investigated pharmaceutical price-fixing. In each of these areas, AGs have stepped in where they believed federal regulators moved too slowly or not at all.
The AG as a Stepping Stone
The attorney general's office has long been one of the most reliable launching pads for higher office. AGs build statewide name recognition, develop policy expertise, and generate media attention through high-profile cases, all of which translate well into a gubernatorial or U.S. Senate campaign. The 2024 elections alone sent three sitting AGs to their state's governor's mansion.
| Governor | State | Party | AG Tenure | Governor Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Stein | NC | D | 2017–2024 | 2025 |
| Bob Ferguson | WA | D | 2013–2024 | 2025 |
| Patrick Morrisey | WV | R | 2013–2024 | 2025 |
| Jeff Landry | LA | R | 2016–2024 | 2024 |
| Josh Shapiro | PA | D | 2017–2023 | 2023 |
| Janet Mills | ME | D | 2013–2019 | 2019 |
| Mike DeWine | OH | R | 2011–2019 | 2019 |
| Greg Abbott | TX | R | 2002–2015 | 2015 |
The office also offers strong incumbency advantages. From 1989 to 2012, elected attorneys general had an 83 percent incumbency reelection rate. No one embodied that advantage more than Tom Miller (D) of Iowa, the longest-serving attorney general in U.S. history. Miller first won the office in 1978 and held it for over four decades, interrupted only by a four-year break beginning in 1990 when he unsuccessfully ran for governor. He returned in 1994 and served continuously until 2023. His defeat by Republican Brenna Bird (R) in the 2022 election ended one of the longest tenures of any statewide officeholder in American history and illustrated how even the deepest incumbency advantage can be overcome in a strong partisan wave.
The combination of high visibility, low vulnerability, and clear pathways to higher office makes the AG one of the most strategically important statewide offices in American politics.
The 2026 Elections
In 2026, 30 states will hold elections for attorney general. Of those, 16 seats are currently held by Democrats and 14 by Republicans. With partisan AG coalitions playing an increasingly central role in shaping federal and state policy, the outcomes of these races will determine which party has the legal firepower to challenge — or defend — the policies coming out of Washington.
The stakes are straightforward: every AG seat that flips changes the calculus for multi-state lawsuits. A shift of just a few seats could determine whether the next major federal policy challenge draws support from 25 state AGs or 20 — and that margin can make the difference in how federal courts view the standing and weight of the case.