Data Collection Methods
Multistate Litigation vs. the Federal Government
What is included in this dataset?
The multistate lawsuits dataset covers from 1980 to the present. While the history of individual states suing the federal government goes back to the Founding, coordinated state activism is a relatively recent phenomenon. This period thus covers the bulk of all multistate challenges to the federal government.
To be included in this dataset, the lawsuit had to involve at least two AGs in a single case against the United States, the president, a federal agency, or other federal official. This dataset tracks those cases in which AGs appeared as direct parties in the case. This includes both initiating a case or joining an existing case as direct intervenors.
What is excluded from this dataset?
- Coordinated amicus curiae activity in existing non-state led cases is not included here, as it is instead tracked in two separate datasets covering the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts. However, coordinated amicus activity in cases led by AGs against the federal government is noted in the information for each case.
- Also excluded from this dataset are cases involving only other state actors and not state AGs. Because state AGs conduct all or nearly all litigation in the name of their states, such excluded cases are not numerous. One of the few examples would be the immigration-related lawsuits brought by several governors in 1994 against the Clinton Administration.
How were these cases collected?
Most multistate lawsuits were identified by a search of the press releases issued by all of the state AGs. Typically, each of the AGs involved issues a press release detailing the case and their involvement, often with links to the original complaint in the case. Most of the new cases added to the dataset are collected through these AG press releases.
However, AG office websites vary in terms of the historical availability of their press releases. Some offices maintain records to the early 1990s, while others only make the press releases associated with the current AG available. LexisNexis searches thus proved the most helpful in finding older cases. In particular, the “PR Newswire” database within LexisNexis included older AG press releases, and the “Major U.S. Newspapers” database also provided news stories about multistate litigation.
These searches were supplemented by the annual reports of each AG office, which often details the litigation initiated in that year. While several AG offices helpfully maintain a historical record of their AG annual reports on their websites, the most consistent source is the HeinOnline legal database. HeinOnline has all of the AG annual reports published from each office’s creation available here (subscription required).
Multistate Settlements and Enforcement Actions
What is included in this dataset?
The multistate settlements dataset covers from 1980 to the present. While a few isolated examples of coordinated enforcement actions occurred before 1980, this period covers nearly all, of the modern period of multistate AG litigation.
To be included in the data set, the case had to meet the following four criteria. The case had to:
- Involve “litigation,” broadly defined as including both filed lawsuits or prelitigation investigations.
- Involve coordinated activities by at least two AGs.
- Share the same defendants and at least one common issue of fact.
- Conclude in a judicial decision, an out-of court settlement, or another similar agreement.
What is excluded from this dataset?
Because of these inclusion criteria, two difficult-to-identify forms of multistate litigation are not included in this data set.
- First, the data set excludes investigations or lawsuits not definitively resolved, even if initial cross-state collaboration was involved. Multistate investigations ultimately ending in no finding of wrongdoing or that the AGs otherwise voluntarily ended without further action are not included. The main reason for excluding these actions is that these early-stage investigations are particularly difficult to discover. The details of most multistate investigations reside outside the public eye until the AGs file a suit, achieve a settlement, or otherwise reach a point in the investigation where some final action is likely. Further, many unresolved cases are technically still open, as AGs could potentially continue a voluntarily terminated investigation in the future.
- Second, this data set does not include cases in which multiple AGs file similar suits but that involve separate investigations and resolutions rather than coordinated activity. These suits may include some level of coordination among the AGs, but they are closer to single-state cases rather than the coordinated litigation efforts that are this dataset’s focus.
How were these cases collected?
Given that most multistate enforcement actions against corporations are resolved in out-of-court settlements rather than in reported court decisions, obtaining information on these cases required searching several sources.
The main resource used for compiling this data set was the Lexis-Nexis “United States News Verdicts, Settlements & Decisions” database. This database contains news reports concerning decisions and out-of-court settlements from a large number of US newspapers, magazines, and wire services. The search of this database began by first adding “attorneys general” as an index term. The following search string was used in all searches for each year from 1980 to the present: (attorney! pre/2 general!) and (litigation or “settlement & compromise” or “suits & claims” or verdicts or “decisions & rulings” or “consent decrees & orders” or investigations).
This search was supplemented with a search of a number of publications issued by the National Association of Attorneys General, including AG Bulletin, Consumer Protection Report, Antitrust Report, Telemarketing Fraud Bulletin, Medicaid Fraud Report, and the NAAG National Environmental Enforcement Journal. In addition to these sources, NAAG’s compilation of antitrust litigation (http://app3.naag.org/antirust/search/) proved to be a useful source for identifying multistate antitrust litigation. The Environmental Protection Agency’s collection of consent decrees (list of civil cases and
settlements; http://cfpub.epa.gov/com liance/cases/) also provided information concerning a handful of multistate environmental settlements with private industry.
The news reports and settlement documents obtained from the above sources typically noted the participating and lead states involved in the litigation. When this information was unavailable from these sources, more targeted searches of each case were necessary. Individual AG websites proved to be the most helpful resource to find this missing information because AGs frequently identify the participating and/or lead states in press releases associated with the resolution of lawsuits or investigations.
Multistate Amicus Briefs (U.S. Supreme Court and Lower Courts)
These two separate datasets track multistate AG amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) activity over time. The first provides comprehensive coverage of multistate amicus briefs filed in the U.S. Supreme Court from 1980 to the present. This includes merit-stage briefs as well as cert-stage amici (when available). The second contains comprehensive coverage of multistate amicus briefs filed in lower courts from 2017 to the present, along with some briefs from earlier years.
To be included, the amicus briefs had to have two or more AG signatories on a single brief. Both datasets are organized by case, such that multiple AG briefs filed in a single case appear under one row. However, briefs filed in separate but related (and non-consolidated) cases are included as separate entries.
What is excluded from this dataset?
- Cases in which multiple AGs serve as direct parties or intervenors are included in the separate multistate litigation dataset. In a handful of cases, multiple AGs serve as direct parties and are supported or opposed by a separate coalition of AGs as amici. Such cases appear in both the multistate litigation and amicus datasets.
How were these cases collected?
U.S. Supreme Court amicus briefs were found via the Lexis-Nexis “U.S. Supreme Court Briefs” database. The following search string was used for each year from 1980 to the present in order to identify briefs filed by AGs: COUNSEL((attorney! w/2 general!) or (state! w/2 attorney!) or ‘‘Atty. Gen.’’ or ‘‘Attorney Gen.’’ or ‘‘Atty. General’’ or ‘‘solicitor general’’) or (amici pre/1 plural(states)). Because the Lexis-Nexis database includes only a limited number of briefs concerning petitions for certiorari in cases that the Court ultimately declines to review, this search was supplemented with a list of such cases provided by the Supreme Court Counsel for the National Association of Attorneys General, Dan Schweitzer.
Most lower court multistate amicus briefs were found via press releases issued by the AGs available on their websites. Additional briefs were found on Lexis-Nexis, using a search narrowed to “Briefs, Pleadings, and Motions.” The specific search included the following search terms: ((“the states of” w/s (amicus or amici)) or “amici states” or “states as amici”).
What is included in this dataset?
The multistate letters and formal comments dataset, which covers from 2017 to the present, contains two main types of documents:
- Multistate sign-on letters, which are typically sent to Congress, federal agencies, or corporations.
- Multistate formal comments submitted to federal agencies.
A handful of other types of documents are included in this dataset, including joint statements to the press and reports issued by multiple AGs.
What is excluded from this dataset?
- Letters or comments issued by a single state are not included here.
- Complaints and briefs filed in court are maintained in the separate datasets noted above.
How were these letters collected?
Nearly all of the letters and formal comments were identified via a search of all AG press releases from 2017 to the present, which are available on individual AGs’ websites.