Over the years, I have written some unkind things about the last two Vermont Attorneys General, Bill Sorrell and TJ Donovan. I can’t say I regret anything in particular. But in light of recent events, it must be said that some of their actions have less to do with political timidity or personal fecklessness and more to do with the inherent weirdness of the office itself.

Our current Attorney General, Charity Clark, has been all over the news this week. She joined other AGs in challenging the Trump administration order ending birthright citizenship. She announced a multi-billion-dollar settlement of a lawsuit against the Sacklers and other bigwigs of Big Pharma responsible for an epidemic of substance use disorder. Strong stuff.

At the same time, her office was before the Vermont Supreme Court defending Gov. Phil Scott’s appointment of Zoie Saunders as interim education secretary. Yes, a Democratic AG was taking the side of a Republican governor in a lawsuit filed by a Democrat and a Progressive.

Because she had no choice. Clark, like Donovan and Sorrell before her, can act like a progressive firebrand outside of Vermont, but she must defend the status quo within the state. It’s literally in her job description: She is the people’s lawyer, yet she also represents the state. And when those two notions are in conflict, her duty to the state comes first.

Here’s another encapsulation of the weirdness. Clark is pursuing a suit (originally filed by Donovan) against fossil fuel producers for knowingly contributing to global warming. But Clark would represent the state in a suit filed by the Conservation Law Foundation over the state’s failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. She’d be arguing against climate action. Not because she’s an environmental hypocrite, but because she is legally bound to represent the state in court.

Continue reading →