AG Cox gives faulty figures on avalanche of amicus briefs
I wrote here April 28 about the propensity of temporary Attorney General Stephen Cox to file amicus briefs on right-wing causes generated elsewhere in America.
He created a new job for a “solicitor general” and hired a young Outside lawyer who is a fellow member of the right-wing Federalist Society.
In confirmation hearings Thursday and Friday, Cox denied that he has been on an amicus filing spree—having signed off on about 110 amicus briefs from last September until the end of March.
He told legislators this rate is comparable to former generals in the Dunleavy era.
A quick look at the statistics shows that Cox is lying or mistaken.
“Over the last 20 years, the state has been asked to join well over a thousand briefs and has joined hundreds, including more than 500 in the last seven years,” Cox said Friday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In a hearing before the Senate State Affairs Committee Thursday, Cox said he didn’t know how many amicus briefs had been approved over the last seven years under Dunleavy, but it was “well over 500, maybe even over 600.”
He said that he is approving amicus briefs “relatively on pace with that same sort of trend.” Not true.
Cox signed 110 amicus briefs in his first 215 days as attorney general. That puts him at a rate of about 190 per year. Had the previous Dunleavy AG’s done this from 2019 to 2025, they would have signed about 1,330 amicus briefs.
Credit Sen. Loki Tobin for spotting Cox’s inaccurate claim and noting that he was signing amicus briefs at a rate more than twice that of Dunleavy’s previous generals.
That Cox is unwilling or unable to give a clear answer on something this simple is alarming.
The amicus briefs are important because they reflect his right-wing opinions. He did not talk much about his opinions, opting instead to appear to be conciliatory and open minded and someone who is not a right-wing zealot.
In the Trump era, all federal judge candidates are banned by Republicans from saying whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election or whether Donald Trump can legally run for president in 2028. Cox has not been asked if he obeys those dictates.
Former Attorney General Bruce Botelho, who served in that job under Wally Hickel and Tony Knowles, testified against Cox’s confirmation. “The attorney general of Alaska must be the state’s chief legal officer, not its chief culture warrior.”
Botelho said when he was AG he signed off on three or four amicus briefs a year.
“In each case, the signature and imprimatur of the state is an expression of the state’s official policy, though I suspect that many of his expressions do not represent either the views of the executive, the Legislature or the people of Alaska,” the former AG said.
He said Cox has opposed birthright citizenship, opposed mandatory immunizations for communicable diseases and opposed termination of temporary protected status for immigrants. Cox has supported denying funding to New York magnet schools over DEI policies, supported the Texas plan to redraw political districts at Trump’s request and supported the firing of Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve.
The next Cox confirmation hearing is Monday at 1 p.m. in the House Judiciary Committee. Perhaps he will have the right numbers on amicus briefs by then.
When I wrote about all these cases that Cox has attached Alaska’s name to, I mentioned how the Department of Law began claiming recently that because of “resource constraints,’’ it would no longer post the full text of the documents signed by General Cox.
The department began listing only the names of the cases, not the text of the documents signed by Cox, blaming “resource constraints.”
I wrote the department’s public relations man to object to the refusal of the department to post the documents. I asked what “resource constraints” prevented posting the documents.
Cox’s public relations man did not reply.
On Thursday, Cox told the Senate State Affairs Committee that he had no idea why the department stopped posting the amicus briefs or what the “resource constraints” were.
He did not know why links that had formerly been provided for older cases had also been removed.
Cox testified that he had directed his employees to start posting the documents again.
During the Thursday hearing, the department posted the links, with no explanation. The “resource constraints” argument was obviously bogus.
It should not have taken the pressure of a confirmation hearing to get those documents posted to allow Alaskans to know what Cox is doing in courts across the land.
But in providing current links, the Department of Law has decided to erase all notice of the amicus briefs filed before April 1, 2025. Resource constraints?
Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673.