Civil Rights

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today reaffirmed the California Department of Justice’s commitment to protecting the civil rights of Californians with disabilities, especially amid efforts by the Trump Administration to roll back long-standing protections for people with disabilities. Both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), signed on September 26, 1973, ensure broad protections for people with disabilities, including their right to live in the most integrated settings appropriate. And in 1999, through the landmark case Olmstead v. L.C., the U.S. Supreme Court held that states are required to provide services to people with disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions when appropriate. This has allowed countless people with disabilities to live, work, and participate fully in their communities. 

“For over 50 years, disability rights laws have upheld the rights of people with disabilities to live in their communities, instead of being forced into institutional settings. These rights — hard-fought by the disability community, enacted by Congress, and affirmed by the Supreme Court — have supported people with disabilities to live in their communities and to enjoy everyday life activities, including family, friends, employment, economic independence, educational advancement, and cultural enrichment. Using flawed legal arguments, the Trump Administration is attempting to slash these longstanding protections. To be clear, the Trump Administration cannot change settled precedent interpreting Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA — nor can it rewrite these laws,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Let me be even clearer: The segregation and isolation of people with disabilities is discrimination and is illegal in California. People with disabilities have the right to live close to their loved ones, and in an environment where they feel comfortable and connected to their communities. In California, over 4.7 million people identify as having a disability, and everyone could experience a disability at some point in their lives. The California Department of Justice recognizes the valuable contributions that people with disabilities make to our communities despite inaccessibility and stigma. I remain committed to upholding the law and will use the full force of my office to protect the rights of Californians with disabilities.” 

A June 2026 memo from the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) attempts to reject well-established law — including Olmstead — that protects people with disabilities from unnecessary institutionalization. In the memo, OLC inaccurately asserts that states are not required by law to integrate mentally disabled patients with their peers by providing community or home-based care, an argument that runs counter to long-standing legal precedent and threatens to shape how federal agencies interpret the law and pursue enforcement.

In fact, following the June OLC memo, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), along with Texas, Florida, and Alaska, filed a proposed resolution of Texas v. Kennedy, a challenge to the implementation of Section 504 — which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of federal funds. Originally filed as Texas v. Becerra, the lawsuit was brought by a group of states against HHS to challenge updated 2024 Section 504 rules, specifically the regulations’ provisions regarding community integration for people with disabilities. The resolution asked the court to enter an order vacating references to community integration throughout the Section 504 regulations, including the entirety of the integration provision. On September 23, the court entered the order requested by HHS, closing the case.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to enforcing the laws that protect Californians with disabilities and ensuring that California is accessible and safe for all. In August, Attorney General Bonta issued a statewide guidance letter to local jurisdictions reminding them of their obligations under federal and state disability access laws to ensure that people with disabilities have meaningful access to emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. In February, he formally announced an investigation related to the emergency response to the Eaton Fire. Specifically, the investigation will seek to determine whether there was potential race, age, or disability discrimination in the emergency preparations and response in the historically Black community of West Altadena. The investigation is ongoing. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued the following statement after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted a coalition of states’ request for a preliminary injunction halting the Trump Administration’s attempt to obtain the sensitive personal information of drivers who have either a commercial driver’s license or commercial driver’s permit required to drive large, heavy, or hazardous commercial vehicles. In August, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition in suing the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) after it threatened to withhold funding to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) if it did not comply with demands for commercial driver data including drivers’ names, license numbers, licensing states, and more. A week later, the coalition's request for a temporary restraining order was granted. Now, the preliminary injunction bars FMCSA from unlawfully obtaining this data as the litigation continues.

“A federal court issued a preliminary injunction once again blocking the Trump Administration’s unlawful attempt to seize personal, sensitive data on commercial drivers,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This ruling ensures that Americans’ privacy rights remain protected as our case continues. California will continue to stand up for the rule of law and work to protect the privacy of Californians and commercial drivers across the country.”  

BACKGROUND

AAMVA operates a federally mandated system called the Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS). States use CDLIS to search for specific individuals applying for a commercial driver’s license, which is required to operate large, heavy, or hazardous commercial vehicles, such as semi-trucks, as opposed to a standard driver’s license that allows a driver to operate a passenger vehicle. CDLIS allows states, for example, to confirm that a person applying for a commercial driver’s license does not have such a license in another state. The federal government has historically used the information system to search for records on an individual basis, but FMCSA threatened to withhold funding for AAMVA and terminate the cooperative agreement under which CDLIS exists and operates, subject to demands for the records of millions of people in the system.

In August 2026, Attorney General Bonta and a multistate coalition challenged the demand for CDLIS data, arguing that it is unconstitutional, exceeds the Trump Administration’s authority, and violates the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act along with the federal Privacy Act. This new order blocks the broad demand for information while litigation continues.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted a coalition of states’ request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) halting the Trump Administration’s attempt to obtain the sensitive personal information of drivers who have either a commercial driver’s license or commercial driver’s permit required to drive large, heavy, or hazardous commercial vehicles. Last week, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition in suing the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) after it threatened to withhold funding to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) if it did not comply with demands for commercial driver data including drivers’ names, license numbers, licensing states, and more. The states simultaneously challenged an administrative subpoena from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the same data, and the court also paused that attempt.

“Just last week, I joined attorneys general across the country to challenge the Trump Administration, yet again, for attempting to seize personal, sensitive data on commercial drivers, and now the court has put a stop to these unlawful efforts,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today’s ruling marks another important step in making sure Americans’ privacy rights remain protected and resolute. When the President forgets the rules of the road, we’ll be there to remind him.”  

BACKGROUND

AAMVA operates a federally mandated system called the Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS). States use CDLIS to search for specific individuals applying for a commercial driver’s license, which is required to operate large, heavy, or hazardous commercial vehicles, such as semi-trucks, as opposed to a standard driver’s license that allows a driver to operate a passenger vehicle. CDLIS allows states, for example, to confirm that a person applying for a commercial driver’s license does not have such a license in another state. The federal government has historically used the information system to search for records on an individual basis, but FMCSA recently threatened to withhold funding for AAMVA and terminate the cooperative agreement under which CDLIS exists and operates, subject to demands for the records of millions of people in the system. DHS, in coordination with FMCSA, issued a separate subpoena seeking these very same records.

Last week, Attorney General Bonta and a multistate coalition challenged the demand for CDLIS data, arguing that it is unconstitutional, exceeds the Trump Administration’s authority, and violates the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act along with the federal Privacy Act, and challenged DHS’s subpoena. Today’s orders temporarily halt this broad demand for information.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a multistate coalition in filing two lawsuits — against the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — that challenge the Trump Administration’s attempt to obtain the sensitive personal information of millions of drivers who have either a commercial driver’s license or commercial driver’s permit required to drive large, heavy, or hazardous commercial vehicles. The two federal agencies are demanding that the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) produce this sensitive information, which includes drivers’ names, license numbers, licensing states, and more. In the lawsuits, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that this broad demand for information is another example of federal overreach that weaponizes the personal data of specialized commercial drivers and runs afoul of the law. 

“True to form, the Trump Administration is again attempting to seize personal, sensitive data — this time from commercial drivers. Any such attempt is a capricious and dangerous federal overreach that must be stopped,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We’ve sued to block the blatant misuse of Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF data, and today, we’re suing again. Let me be clear: when the President crosses the line, we’ll be there to stand up for privacy rights and keep him in his lane. If the President wants to stop going to court, he should stop breaking the law.”

BACKGROUND

Founded in 1933, AAMVA represents state, provincial, and territorial motor vehicle officials in the United States and Canada. Among other functions, AAMVA operates a federally mandated system called the Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS). States use CDLIS to search for specific individuals applying for a commercial driver’s license, which is required to operate large, heavy, or hazardous commercial vehicles, such as semi-trucks, as opposed to a standard driver’s license that allows a driver to operate a passenger vehicle. CDLIS allows states, for example, to confirm that a person applying for a commercial driver’s license does not have such a license in another state. 

The federal government has historically used the information system to search for records on an individual basis, but FMCSA has now threatened to withhold funding for AAMVA and terminate the cooperative agreement under which CDLIS exists and operates, subject to demands for the records of millions of people in the system — resulting in another dangerous attempt to obtain sensitive data. DHS, in coordination with FMCSA, has issued a subpoena seeking these very same records. In the lawsuits, among other arguments, the coalition argues that these demands for CDLIS data exceed FMCSA’s and DHS’s authority, are barred by the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act, and are barred by the protections of the federal Privacy Act.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to protecting personal and private data. Last week, Attorney General Bonta sued over the Trump Administration’s attempt to weaponize sensitive personal information about California families and children. He has also sued and secured a court order blocking the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from providing DHS with unfettered access to individual personal health data. Previously, he also challenged and secured relief blocking the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s demand that states turn over personal and sensitive information about millions of SNAP recipients.

In filing these lawsuits, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the state of Pennsylvania. Additionally, the attorney general of Minnesota joined the DHS case. 

As extreme weather events increase in frequency and intensity, localities must ensure that people with disabilities are central to all emergency preparedness, response, and recovery efforts 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statewide guidance letter to local jurisdictions reminding them of their obligations under federal and state disability access laws to ensure that people with disabilities have meaningful access to emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. The guidance, developed by the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Enforcement Section through its Disability Rights Bureau, makes clear that inclusive emergency planning is a legal requirement that must be built into how local governments prepare for and respond to disasters.

“Every Californian deserves to know that their government has a plan for them — especially in moments of crisis,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California’s local jurisdictions have a legal obligation to integrate the needs of people with disabilities into all phases of emergency management — preparedness, response, and recovery. Today my office is releasing guidance to remind local jurisdictions of their legal obligations to their residents with disabilities and reaffirm California’s longstanding commitment to disability rights.”

People with disabilities often face significant barriers to critical support before, during, and after emergencies and disasters, like emergency notifications, evacuation, transportation, shelter and mass care, and recovery. As a result, people with disabilities are estimated to experience at least double the mortality rate of the general population during emergencies. Local jurisdictions must comply with disability access laws in their preparation for, response to, and recovery from emergencies. Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and applicable California laws, local governments must proactively plan for the needs of people with disabilities — people with disabilities cannot be required to individually request accommodations at the time of an emergency. These obligations extend to services delivered through private contractors. The guidance letter outlines these legal requirements and provides local jurisdictions with practical information to support compliance. The letter also highlights state and federal resources available to support local compliance, including training and planning information from state agencies.

The letter provides guidance in four key areas of emergency management:

• Accessible notifications and communications.
• Evacuation planning, including accessible transportation, medical equipment, and service animals.
• Sheltering, including accessible facilities, assistive technology, medical supplies, and staff training.
• Reintegration, including support reconnecting people with care, services, and accessible housing after a disaster.

The guidance letter is available at oag.ca.gov/civil/disability-rights.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to enforcing the laws that protect Californians with disabilities and ensuring that California is accessible and safe for all. In February, he formally announced an investigation related to the emergency response to the Eaton Fire. Specifically, the investigation will seek to determine whether there was potential race, age, or disability discrimination in the emergency preparations and response in the historically Black community of West Altadena. The investigation is ongoing. 

Files amicus brief in support of New York’s Green Light Law 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a multistate coalition, filed an amicus brief in defense of New York’s Driver’s License Access and Privacy Act, or “Green Light Law.” This law restricts the New York Department of Motor Vehicles’ (DMV) disclosure of drivers’ personal information to immigration enforcement agencies absent a court order or judicial warrant. The Trump Administration filed a lawsuit challenging the law, and a district court granted New York’s request to dismiss the complaint, rejecting the Trump Administration’s “sweeping” interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and holding that the statute applies only to information about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status. The Trump Administration subsequently appealed the decision. In the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that states like New York have reasonably concluded that disentangling their state from civil immigration enforcement promotes public safety and public trust and that these types of state laws are constitutional and do not impede federal immigration enforcement.   

“The Trump Administration continues to try to bully states for choosing to use their limited resources to promote public safety rather than assist in federal civil immigration enforcement,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Time and time again, the Trump Administration’s distorted view of our Constitution has been firmly rejected by courts — and time and time again, the Trump Administration has found new ways to waste taxpayer dollars on fruitless legal fights. New York’s Green Light law is a thoughtful exercise of state authority to protect the safety and well-being of its residents. As Attorney General, I will always stand up for public safety and the rights of our immigrant communities and support states that do the same.” 

New York’s Green Light Law (1) prohibits DMV from disclosing certain personal information and records to any agency that primarily enforces immigration law absent a court order or judicial warrant; (2) requires DMV, within three days of receiving a request for information from an agency that enforces immigration law, to notify the subject of the request; and (3) mandates that DMV require any person that accesses its information or records to certify that they will not use it for civil immigration purposes. In dismissing the Trump Administration’s lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that the Green Light Law is a lawful exercise of state authority to regulate the conduct of its officials and that it does not infringe on or impede federal immigration statutes. 

In the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to uphold the lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing that: 

• States like New York have reasonably concluded that limiting the use of state and local resources in civil immigration enforcement promotes public safety.
• State laws like New York’s are constitutional and do not serve as obstacles to the implementation of federal law, and the United States’s contrary argument raises serious Tenth Amendment concerns.
• New York’s law neither directly regulates the federal government nor impermissibly discriminates against it.

California has a number of laws that limit the use of state and local resources in civil immigration enforcement. Shortly before President Trump returned to office, Attorney General Bonta issued a package of updated bulletins and new guidance to assist state and local law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and defense counsel in complying with state law as California prepares for new threats to its immigrant communities. The Attorney General has also released a number of guidance documents to help California immigrants better understand their rights and protections under the law and assist state and local agencies, TK-12 schools, and childcare providers and preschool programs comply with new state laws. The full set of resources, available in multiple languages, can be accessed at oag.ca.gov/immigrant/. 

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in their ongoing effort to block the illegal development of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County near Gilroy, California. Earlier this month, Attorney General Bonta and County Counsel LoPresti filed a lawsuit challenging the unlawful development of this facility, arguing that it violates the National Environmental Policy Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and California’s Williamson Act. In their motion for a preliminary injunction, Attorney General Bonta and County Counsel LoPresti detail the dangers of developing such a facility without any environmental review or consultation with state and local governments. Without judicial intervention to halt ongoing development, the federal government will continue its reckless attempt to construct a facility that threatens the local ecosystem, habitat, and infrastructure, along with the many people and families who would be impacted by this facility.

“This attempt to construct an ICE facility without complying with the applicable laws is dangerous for the environment and for our people. California refuses to stand idly by,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “We’re asking the court to pause this development and ensure the interests of our communities are properly protected. The law isn’t written in disappearing ink, and it’s time for the Trump Administration to take a step back and read it clearly.”

“This motion demonstrates that, with public health and the environment at stake, the federal government chose secrecy over transparency and speed over deliberation,” said Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti. “We’re confident the court will hold the federal government accountable to the clear legal requirements that apply to this project — requirements that the federal government has so far completely ignored.”

In January 2025, a private developer leased the 24.5-acre parcel to the federal government for use by ICE — likely as an Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) holding facility. ERO holding facilities, which are primarily designed for administrative processing and short-term detainment, have been the subject of numerous lawsuits during the Trump Administration, and investigative reports have revealed frequent overcrowding, long-term confinement, and inhumane conditions. Since leasing the property near Gilroy, the federal government has proceeded with a plan to quickly and surreptitiously develop a facility. In doing so, the federal government has ignored important environmental concerns and federal laws. 

The construction of the facility threatens to cause the release of hazardous materials and disrupt the ecosystem, habitat, and agricultural value of land that the county and the state have protected for exclusively agricultural uses since the 1960s. The project is also likely to have severe impacts on vital infrastructure, overwhelming a septic system designed for much smaller use. This motion for a preliminary injunction asks the court to halt the development of the facility, which includes designing, procuring, renovating, retrofitting, demolishing, constructing, or taking any other actions to physically alter the property.

In their motion, Attorney General Bonta and County Counsel LoPresti argue that:

• The federal government’s decision to enter into a lease agreement and begin construction for a holding facility at the property is a major federal action with likely significant impacts to the environment, which triggered environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. 
• The federal government did not attempt to consult with the county or the state to solicit their views about the project, and the federal government’s obscurement of its plans to develop and operate a holding facility at the property prevented the county and the state from providing input to the federal government, in violation of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act.
• These failures and violations of law warrant a preliminary injunction and halting the construction because the federal government must abide by the law, and the real and likely harm from continuing development outweighs the risk of delaying construction.   

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that hate crime guidance and resources are now available in Somali (Know Your Rights and Protections Under Hate Crimes Laws, How to Report Hate Crimes and Incidents and Get Help). Earlier this month, in response to reports of childcare providers in California facing targeted harassment, surveillance, and stalking by internet vigilantes alleging fraudulent activity, Attorney General Bonta reminded Californians of existing guidance and resources for law enforcement, prosecutors, and victims of hate crimes. According to reports, these actions have involved uninvited home visits and filming. The United Domestic Workers union reported a spike in harassment at Somali-run daycare centers in San Diego.  

“Reports that internet vigilantes are harassing San Diegan childcare providers at their homes and workplaces are extremely alarming. California has laws that prohibit this type of harassment,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Last week, I denounced these deplorable acts, and today, I am happy to announce that hate crime resources are now available in the Somali language. I encourage all Californians and law enforcement agencies to know their rights and familiarize themselves with laws that protect individuals.” 

In California, it is considered a hate crime if you are targeted because of your actual or perceived nationality, including your immigration or citizenship status. If you witness or are the victim of a hate crime, you should report it to your local law enforcement agency. California law prohibits law enforcement authorities from asking individuals, including those who are reporting or victims of potential crimes, about their immigration status, unless the information is necessary to certify the victim for a U visa (victim of crime visa) or T visa (victim of human trafficking visa). 

Resources for the Reporting of and Response to Hate Crimes

Crimes motivated by hate are not just attacks on individual innocent people — they are attacks on our communities and the entire State. It is the job of the California Department of Justice to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced.

For law enforcement and prosecutors:

• Law Enforcement Bulletin on Laws Prohibiting Hate Crimes and/or Providing for Enhanced Penalties for Specific Hate Crimes
• Hate Crimes Rapid Response Protocol for the Deployment of CADOJ Resources
• Guidance to Prosecutors on Hate Crimes

For victims of hate crimes:

• Know Your Rights and Protections Under Hate Crimes Laws (now available in Somali)
• How to Report Hate Crimes and Incidents and Get Help. This brochure is available in: Spanish, Arabic, Armenian, Cambodian, Chinese (Simplified), Chinese (Traditional), Farsi, Japanese, Korean, Punjabi, Russian, Somali, Tagalog, and Vietnamese

More information on hate crimes is available at oag.ca.gov/hatecrimes.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led a coalition of 24 attorneys general in sending a comment letter to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) opposing an unlawful attempt to rollback regulations under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The FHA prohibits discrimination based on the effects of a housing policy, even if the intent of the policy was not to discriminate. HUD’s proposed rule change would remove all mentions of liability under the FHA for discrimination that results from the effects of an action. 

“Once again, the Trump Administration is attempting to shirk its obligation to end housing discrimination and foster diverse communities. We fought similar attempts during the first Trump presidency, and we have no qualms about doing so again now,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This is a matter of right and wrong. While we have made progress in recent decades, there’s still more work to do — and my fellow attorneys general and I are committed to protecting the hard-won gains that have been made and building on them.”

In their letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition assert that discrimination and segregation in housing persist in the country and disproportionately harm people of color, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, individuals with disabilities, and other historically marginalized groups. The coalition is urging HUD to keep the current rule in place to ensure greater equality of opportunity in housing. 

The attorneys general argue that:

• Discriminatory effects liability is a critical tool for HUD and states to enforce the FHA and state laws and to protect residents against arbitrary and unnecessary practices that limit access to housing. States have used discriminatory effects claims to challenge many types of seemingly neutral policies that can have a discriminatory effect, such as zoning ordinances, occupancy restrictions, no-pet policies, and English-only policies.
• Removal of these regulations would increase burdens on state agencies to provide information about rights and responsibilities. It would also send a false message that certain forms of unlawful discrimination are now acceptable, even though they remain prohibited under the law. 
• The proposed rule change would be unlawful because HUD failed to provide a justification for removing the longstanding regulations and because the existing rule accurately reflects federal law. They also argue HUD failed to consider that the existing rule benefits the public by providing a consistent, nationwide resource that clearly explains what conduct violates the FHA and what the legal standard is for making discrimination claims and defending against them.

The comment letter was co-led by Attorney General Bonta, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Joining them are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

LOS ANGELES — California Attorney General Bonta today formally announced the commencement of an investigation by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) related to the emergency response to the Eaton Fire. Specifically, the investigation will seek to determine whether there was potential race, age, or disability discrimination in the emergency preparations and response in the historically Black community of West Altadena. The Eaton Fire burned 14,021 acres, killing at least 19 people, destroying over 9,000 buildings, and becoming one of the deadliest fires in California history. The average age of the people who died was 77 years old. 

“Today, the California Department of Justice formally announces an investigation into the emergency response during the 2025 Eaton Fire. My office will be investigating whether there was race, age, or disability discrimination in the emergency response in West Altadena, which claimed the lives of at least 19 people. Specifically, we'll be looking at whether the systems and structures at play contributed to a delay in the County’s evacuation notice and possible disparities in emergency response in West Altadena,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The West Altadena community rang the alarm and brought compelling evidence to the attention of my office. We know that evacuation warnings for the historically Black neighborhood of West Altadena came many hours after these same warnings were sent to the rest of Altadena. We must let the facts uncovered by our investigation determine what went wrong here, but one thing holds true: The people of West Altadena deserve answers to their questions and deserve institutions that are responsive to their concerns, and institutions they can trust. As the People’s Attorney, I and the entirety of the California Department of Justice work for the People. I thank the communities that reached out, spoke up, and organized during a time of immense grief, loss, and rebuilding.”

The investigation will be spearheaded by DOJ’s Civil Rights Enforcement Section. DOJ's investigation will focus on potential violations of civil rights laws, legal questions that fall under DOJ’s purview. While DOJ is committed to transparency, in order to protect the integrity of this investigation, no further updates can be given at this time.