Civil Rights

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 16 attorneys general in filing a comment letter opposing the Trump Administration’s proposal to remove certain reporting requirements that help the U.S. Department of Education determine whether local education agencies have significant disparities in representation in special education programming for children with disabilities based on race. Data and research have shown for decades that students are disproportionately identified for special education and related services, and disproportionately placed in segregated, restrictive special education settings, based on race and ethnicity. As such, it is necessary for the Department to evaluate whether states are using approaches that accurately identify and address this imbalance, rather than obscure it. California has a longstanding commitment to gathering and reporting detailed information on student’s educational experiences to promote equitable access to education for all students regardless of race, ethnicity, and disability status.  

“The Trump Administration wants to get rid of reporting requirements that help shine a light on race-based disparities in special education for students with disabilities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The disturbing reality is that children of color are disproportionately — and often mistakenly — represented in special education. Transparency in identifying and reporting this data is critical to addressing longstanding racial and ethnic inequities that remain pervasive and deeply problematic in our classrooms today. I stand with attorneys general from across the country in defense of efforts to improve, not obscure, how this data is collected and measured to build a better educational system that lifts up and supports all our students.”

Children of color are identified as children with disabilities at substantially higher rates than their peers, and there is a strong concern that some of these children may have been improperly identified as children with disabilities, putting them at a disadvantage in their education. Misidentification interferes with a school’s ability to provide children with appropriate educational services and raises concerns of potential inequities in both educational opportunities and outcomes. The U.S. Department of Education, through its Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations, has for years sought to bring critical awareness to the problem, and to ensure that state and local educational agencies are working to address it — until now. Under this proposal, the Department seeks to improperly remove the requirement for states to report changes to their methodology for calculating significant disproportionality, falsely claiming that it will relieve states of administrative burden. Yet the data collection is far from burdensome for states — states are only required to submit standard methodologies one time and then resubmit upon any revisions to the standards set. Completing and submitting the form imposes minimal burden, and the benefits of tracking this important information outweigh any conceivable burden this data collection involves. 

If the U.S. Department of Education eliminates the reporting requirement it will be impossible for the Department’s Office of Special Education Programs to assess the reasonableness of any changes that states may make to their policies. Some states may revert to prior practices that could prevent them from identifying the magnitude of racial and ethnic overrepresentation in special education. Without publicly available information on how states calculate this imbalance, decisions about which local education agencies are identified as having imbalances and required to take corrective action will occur behind closed doors, shielded from both Department oversight and meaningful public scrutiny. Reporting is necessary for the Department to evaluate whether states are using appropriate approaches that accurately identify and address disproportionate representation in special education, rather than hide it.

In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the Department of Education to withdraw its proposed rule for these reasons: 

1. Eliminating the states’ obligation to report changes to their methodology for calculating significant disproportionate representation in special education undermines the states’ interest in ensuring equal educational opportunities and outcomes for all students, including students of color and students with disabilities.
2. Removing the reporting requirement will end much-needed oversight and prevent the Department of Education from fulfilling its obligation to evaluate the rationality of changes states may make to their methodologies for calculating significant disproportionality.

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington in filing the comment letter.

A copy of the letter can be found here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 18 attorneys general in opposing the Trump Administration’s proposal to require colleges and universities to submit data linking race to admissions, financial aid, and student performance. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) claims to be seeking data to assist it in enforcing Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based on race. Higher education institutions in California have not used race as a factor in admissions or financial aid since Proposition 209 passed in 1996. In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the proposed data collection would require these institutions to undertake new, costly, and burdensome data collection efforts on an unreasonable timeframe and is unlikely to yield high quality data or achieve ED’s stated goals. The coalition expresses concern that, instead of addressing purported racial discrimination in postsecondary admissions or ensuring compliance with Title VI, this data may instead be misused to improperly target colleges and universities with lawful diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives or who have ideological differences with the current administration. 

“The Trump Administration is demanding that colleges turn over massive amounts of student data, forcing institutions to scramble under costly, confusing, and unnecessary reporting burdens, all to support President Trump’s scheme to weaponize data against colleges and universities this Administration disfavors,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Data should empower colleges and universities to better serve their students, not be used as a weapon to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. We call on the U.S. Department of Education to abandon its pretense of accountability and rescind this burdensome proposal.”  

On August 7, 2025, President Trump directed ED to expand the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), an already-required survey, to address alleged concerns about race-conscious admissions practices in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (SFFA v. Harvard). The new survey section will collect a broad range of data on undergraduate and graduate admissions, financial aid, and student outcomes, including data by race and sex on 1) the institutions’ applied, admitted, and enrolled cohorts, disaggregated by admission test score, GPA, family income, Pell Grant eligibility and parental education; 2) average high school grade point average and admission test scores; and 3) the count of students admitted via early action, early decision, or regular admissions. Additionally, the survey will include data about students receiving financial aid, including the average amount, cost of attendance, graduation rates, and graduates’ final cumulative grade point average. 

In the letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition highlight concerns with the proposal:

The proposed data collection will not achieve its stated goals: The proposal will not achieve the aim of helping to address racial discrimination. In SFFA v. Harvard, the Supreme Court held that the use of race as one factor in college admissions decisions violated equal protection. However, nothing in the ruling prevents colleges and universities from lawfully pursuing diversity as part of their mission. And given the variety of factors colleges use in making admissions and scholarship decisions, as well as the complex factors influencing student performance and graduation rates, it would be impossible to identify racial discrimination based on the data collection. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition raise alarms that ED may weaponize this data to aid the Trump Administration in targeting college and university it disagrees with. The attorneys general highlight the lack of consultation and input from stakeholders, the rushed process, and the alignment with the administration anti-DEI efforts as signs that ED may attempt to use this data to pressure these institutions to adopt administration priorities and abandon lawful efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion rather than to enforce anti-discrimination laws. 

The proposed data collection is unreasonably burdensome and is unlikely to result in high-quality data: The proposed data collection would require four-year colleges and universities to complete thousands of new survey data fields, despite vague definitions and unclear instructions. The schools would need to produce the data in a short, unreasonable timeframe, without proper input from stakeholders, and follow the burdensome requirement to submit data for five previous years. Much of the data requested will be inconsistently available across institutions and student populations, making it difficult to make meaningful comparisons. And the level of disaggregation proposed will also further splinter the data into small subgroups that make it less likely that statistically significant conclusions can be drawn, and poses concerns related to student privacy.

Attorney General Bonta remains committed to protecting California’s higher education institutions from unwarranted federal attacks and defending their efforts to foster diversity, equity, inclusion, and to serve all students. In March, Attorney General Bonta, as part of a multistate coalition, issued guidance to institutions of higher education and K-12 schools regarding their obligations under federal civil rights laws and the U.S. Constitution. 

In filing the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. 

A copy of the comment letter is available here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 17 attorneys general in submitting an amicus brief in San Francisco AIDS Foundation, et al. v. Trump, et al., opposing the Trump Administration’s executive orders targeting programs that promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). These orders declare programs promoting DEIA to be illegal and discriminatory, and require executive agencies to certify that all their contracts and grants do not promote DEIA. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta and the other attorneys general support a coalition of LGBTQ, healthcare, and community advocacy groups (“the plaintiffs”) in their lawsuit challenging the executive orders as unlawful. The coalition urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to uphold the preliminary injunction granted by a district court blocking the executive orders’ restrictions. 

“Trump’s continued attacks on programs that promote diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility threatens to rip crucial support structures from under the feet of transgender individuals and other vulnerable populations,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I will continue to oppose these attempts to undermine data-backed programs that provide social and economic benefits and help people of all backgrounds and identities grow and prosper.” 

In January 2025, the Trump Administration issued two executive orders targeting DEIA and “equity-related grants or contracts.” While the anti-DEIA executive orders did not define these or other key terms, they directed: (1) executive agencies to terminate equity-related grants or contracts; (2) agencies to require contractors and grantees to certify that they do not run DEIA programs that, in the Administration’s view, violate federal anti-discrimination laws; and (3) the U.S. Attorney General to take steps to discourage private-sector use of DEIA, including deterring such initiatives and promoting compliance investigations. 

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging these executive orders, alleging the orders unlawfully burden organizations providing critical services to LGBTQ communities and especially harm community-based services for transgender individuals. In June 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the executive orders’ “Equity Termination Provision” was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fifth Amendment; the orders’ Gender Termination Provision and Gender Promotion Provision discriminated on the basis of transgender status in violation of the Fifth Amendment; and that all three provisions abridged the plaintiffs’ freedom of expression in violation of the First Amendment. The Trump Administration appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

In an amicus brief filed today in the Ninth Circuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue:

• Practices that promote DEIA are permitted and often even required under federal civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. Even when not required by law, research indicates that DEIA-related policies and practices lead to benefits such as economic growth and better educational outcomes, rather than creating the purported “disastrous consequences” asserted by the executive orders.
• The executive orders lack clarity around the proposed certification requirements, creating confusion and compliance burdens that harm states, individuals, and businesses alike. The executive orders do not provide clear definitions of key terms like “DEIA,” “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion,” or “accessibility,” nor do they explain what aspects of such terms now constitute violations of federal law. States and private agencies are unable to anticipate what funding streams might be cancelled or why. Such agencies face termination notices for grants such as those addressing teacher shortages, workplace harassment, and gender-based violence, with no clear explanation of what actions the agencies can take to avoid terminations. This opaqueness creates a chilling effect for state and private entities, who must choose between broadly halting programs and services that their communities rely on or risk facing litigation or loss of crucial federal funding. 
• The executive orders’ Gender Termination and Gender Promotion Provisions discriminate against transgender populations by directing agencies to terminate grants that serve or even acknowledge transgender people. 

Attorney General Bonta co-led today’s amicus effort with the attorneys general of Illinois and Massachusetts. They are joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. 

A copy of the brief can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 17 attorneys general in submitting an amicus brief opposing the Trump Administration’s executive orders targeting programs that promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). These orders declare programs promoting DEIA to be illegal and discriminatory, and require executive agencies to certify that all their contracts and grants do not promote DEIA. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition support nonprofit organization Chicago Women in Trades in its lawsuit challenging the orders as unlawful. The coalition urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to uphold the preliminary injunction granted by a district court blocking the executive orders’ restrictions. 

“Supporting policies that promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility ensures all individuals can grow and thrive without unfair roadblocks, not just in California, but across the nation,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Trump’s continued attacks on these values not only threaten the data-backed economic and social benefits DEIA practices bring to communities, but also leverage federal funding to suppress state and private entities’ right to express their values. My fellow attorneys general and I will continue to support those standing up against Trump’s bully tactics and anti-American orders, and will fight to ensure safe and welcoming communities for all.” 

In January 2025, the Trump Administration issued two executive orders targeting DEIA and “equity-related grants or contracts.” While the anti-DEIA executive orders did not define these or other key terms, they directed: (1) executive agencies to terminate equity-related grants or contracts; (2) agencies to require contractors and grantees to certify that they do not run DEIA programs that, in the Administration’s view, violate federal anti-discrimination laws; and (3) the U.S. Attorney General to take steps to discourage private-sector use of DEIA, including deterring such initiatives and promoting compliance investigations.  

Chicago Women in Trades, an organization that addresses gender-based structural obstacles facing prospective trade workers, filed a lawsuit challenging these executive orders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, concluding that the organization was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the executive orders’ certification requirement violates Chicago Women in Trades’ First Amendment rights. The Trump Administration appealed this decision to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. 

In an amicus brief filed yesterday, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that:

• Practices that promote DEIA are permitted and often even required under federal civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. Even when not required by law, research indicates that DEIA-related policies and practices lead to benefits such as economic growth and better educational outcomes, rather than creating the purported “disastrous consequences” asserted by the executive orders.
• The executive orders lack clarity around the proposed certification requirements, creating confusion and compliance burdens that harm states, individuals, and businesses alike. The executive orders do not provide clear definitions of key terms like “DEIA,” “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion,” or “accessibility,” nor do they explain what aspects of such terms now constitute violations of federal law. This opaqueness creates a chilling effect for state and private entities, who must choose between broadly halting programs and services that their communities rely on or risk facing litigation or loss of crucial federal funding. 

Attorney General Bonta co-led the filing of today’s brief along with the attorneys general of Illinois and Massachusetts. They are joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

A copy of the brief can be found here.

Since the Attorney General’s Office opened a civil rights investigation in 2021, the Sheriff’s Department has made a number of reforms but remains obstinate on persistent civil rights violations at its jails.

LOS ANGELES – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles (County), Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD), and County Correctional Health Services (CHS) over unconstitutional and inhumane conditions at Los Angeles County jails. In 2021, the Attorney General’s Office launched an investigation into whether LASD had engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing. Among other issues, the investigation revealed significant ongoing constitutional violations at Los Angeles County jails, including a significant increase in in-custody deaths, despite decreases in the jail population size; uninhabitable and overcrowded jail facilities with inadequate plumbing, sanitation, and temperature control, which has contributed to multiple deaths; and a failure to provide adequate medical and mental health care to people inside the jails. Following extensive engagement with the County and LASD, including Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna, during which they refused to agree to the comprehensive solutions necessary to improve conditions at all county jails, Attorney General Bonta today filed a lawsuit to compel much-needed reforms. 

“In recent years, my office has successfully negotiated settlements with law enforcement agencies across California to reform their practices, including most recently, an agreement with the neighboring city of Torrance,” said Attorney General Bonta. "While the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Luna have made a number of reforms to patrol operations during the course of our investigation, they have remained obstinate on the issue of improving the unsafe and unconstitutional conditions at county jails. We’re going to court because we have no other choice —  we will not let Los Angeles County continue to ignore its responsibility to the health, safety, and well-being of the individuals under its care. Los Angeles operates the largest jail system in the United States — and one of the most problematic. When we’re talking about feces smeared on the walls and medical care denied to those in need, we’re talking about a disrespect for the basic dignity of our fellow humans and a violation of their most fundamental constitutional rights. We’re confident the court will agree."

The Attorney General’s investigation found that Los Angeles County jails are uninhabitable and under-resourced. People incarcerated in the Los Angeles County jails, many of whom are awaiting trial, are forced to live in filthy cells with broken and overflowing toilets, infestations of rats and roaches, and no clean water for drinking or bathing. They are provided spoiled, moldy, and nutritionally inadequate meals; little to no access to hygiene supplies, such as soap, toilet paper, and menstrual products; little to no clean clothing and bedding; and almost no time outside their cells. Many individuals suffer physical or mental deterioration in these punitive conditions but are unable to access necessary medical or mental health care. The lack of access to care contributes to the shocking rate of preventable in-custody deaths, such as suicides. According to LASD’s own data over the last three years, the number of preventable deaths inside the jails has continued to climb under Sheriff Luna. The lack of access to medical and mental health care also leaves incarcerated persons woefully ill-equipped to re-enter society at large and hinders any meaningful rehabilitation of those serving sentences. 

The County and LASD have been aware of the unconstitutional and deplorable conditions in their jails for decades. Yet instead of addressing root causes or devoting resources to resolving violations of state and federal law that they themselves acknowledge, the County and LASD have continued to resist oversight and accountability, spending millions of dollars to defend and settle litigation about abuses in the jails over the years, without making the necessary changes to their operations and policies and stymying the work of independent oversight bodies to provide some level of transparency and accountability. While LASD has made a number of improvements to its policing practices — especially in patrols — over the course of many years and multiple consent decrees, the County and LASD have failed to implement agreed-upon reforms designed to address similar constitutional violations that persist in the jails.  

In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta seeks injunctive and declaratory relief that would require the County, LASD and Sheriff Luna, and CHS and its Director to implement overarching reforms in county jails including, but not limited to: (1) providing constitutionally adequate medical, dental, and mental healthcare to incarcerated persons; (2) protecting incarcerated persons from an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) providing habitable, humane, and safe conditions of confinement; (4) respecting the dignity and health of incarcerated persons; (5) ensuring health care requests are addressed promptly and fully; (6) providing reasonable accommodations and equal access to programs, services, and activities for incarcerated persons with disabilities; and (7) providing access to multilingual, interpretation, and translation services for incarcerated persons with limited English proficiency.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to strengthening accountability in local law enforcement as one key part of the broader effort to increase public safety for all Californians. Last month, Attorney General Bonta announced an enforceable agreement requiring Torrance Police Department (TPD) to engage in a comprehensive set of reforms — which TPD voluntarily entered into — to improve TPD’s organizational health and relationship with the community. In 2024, Attorney General Bonta announced the conclusion of DOJ oversight of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), after SFPD achieved substantial compliance with recommended reforms to its policing policies and practices. He secured a settlement agreement with the City of Vallejo and the Vallejo Police Department requiring reforms to the department’s policies and practices. Attorney General Bonta is also engaged in ongoing pattern or practice investigations into the Antioch Police Department stemming from allegations of bigoted text messages and other potentially discriminatory misconduct, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department following allegations of excessive force, and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office relating to conditions of confinement in jail facilities.

A copy of the lawsuit, filed today in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, is available here. 

Amidst increase in reported hate crimes, urges agencies across California to recommit themselves to taking action 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released the 2024 Hate Crime in California Report and highlighted information and resources to support ongoing efforts across the state to combat hate. Reported hate crime events in California have increased by 2.7% from 1,970 in 2023 to 2,023 in 2024. In particular, reported hate crimes against our LGBTQ+ and Jewish communities have increased, and too many communities continue to be unacceptably targeted by hate. Amidst this increase in reported hate crime offenses and events, Attorney General Bonta urges local partners and law enforcement to review the resources highlighted today and to recommit themselves to taking action.

“There is absolutely no place for hate in California. Transparent and accessible data is a critical part of understanding where we are and how we can end hate crimes in our communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Everyone has a part to play as we continue to fight intolerance in California, and I urge leaders up and down the state to review the data and resources available and recommit to standing united against hate. The California Department of Justice remains steadfast in our commitment to continue working with law enforcement, elected leaders, and community organizations across California to keep our communities safe.” 

The California Department of Justice has collected statewide data on hate crimes since 1995. Under California law, a hate crime is a criminal act committed in whole or in part because of a victim’s actual or perceived disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with someone with one or more of these characteristics. If you believe you or someone you know has been the victim of a hate crime, notify local law enforcement and consider taking the following steps:  

• If you are in immediate danger, call 911 and if needed, seek medical attention.
• Write down the exact words that were used and take note of any other relevant facts.
• If safe to do so, save all evidence and take photos.
• Get contact information for other victims and witnesses.
• Reach out to community organizations in your area that deal with hate crimes or incidents.

Hate crimes are distinct from hate incidents, which are actions or behaviors motivated by hate that may be protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Examples of hate incidents include name-calling, insults, and distributing hate material in public places. If a hate incident starts to threaten a person or property, it may become a hate crime. Hate crimes can be reported to the California Civil Rights Department's CA v. Hate online portal at any time in 15 languages or by calling the CA v. Hate hotline at (833) 866-4283 or 833-8-NO-HATE, Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and talking to a trained civil rights agent in over 200 languages. Outside of those hours, people can leave a voicemail or call 211 to report a hate incident and seek support from a professional trained in culturally competent communication and trauma-informed practices. 

Historically, hate crime data has generally been underreported and the California Department of Justice recognizes that the data presented in its reports may not adequately reflect the actual number of hate crime events that have occurred in the state. Caution should be used when comparing 2024 hate crimes data to prior years, as not all agencies were able to submit a full year of data for 2024. For more information, please reference the “Understanding the Data, Characteristics and Known Limitations” section in the report. 

Some of the key findings from the 2024 Hate Crime in California Report include: 

• Reported hate crime events increased 2.7% from 1,970 in 2023 to 2,023 in 2024.
• Hate crime offenses increased 8.9% from 2,359 in 2023 to 2,568 in 2024.
• The number of victims of reported hate crimes increased 8.2% from 2,303 in 2023 to 2,491 in 2024. 
• Reported hate crime events involving a racial bias decreased 0.6% from 1,017 in 2023 to 1,011 in 2024. 
• Anti-Black bias events remained the most prevalent, despite a 4.6% decrease from 518 in 2023 to 494 in 2024. 
• Anti-Asian bias events decreased 4.8% from 125 in 2023 to 119 in 2024. 
• Reported hate crime events involving a religion bias increased 3% from 394 in 2023 to 406 in 2024. 
• Anti-Jewish bias events rose from 289 in 2023 to 310 in 2024, an increase of 7.3%.
• Anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias events fell from 40 in 2023 to 24 in 2024. 
• Between 2023 and 2024, hate crime events motivated by sexual orientation bias increased by 12.3% from 405 in 2023 to 455 in 2024, anti-transgender bias events increased by 12.3% from 65 in 2023 to 73 in 2024, and anti-LGBTQ+ bias events increased by 13.9% from 2023.
• From 2023 to 2024, the number of hate crimes referred for prosecution increased from 679 in 2023 to 818 in 2024. Of the 818 hate crimes that were referred for prosecution, 506 cases were filed by district attorneys and elected city attorneys for prosecution. Of the 506 cases that were filed for prosecution, 327 were filed as hate crimes and 179 were filed as non-bias motivated crimes.

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. Earlier this year, Attorney General Bonta released updated guidance and resources on hate crimes for law enforcement, prosecutors, and the victims of these crimes in preparation for a potential increase in violence against immigrants as a result of President Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric. These resources include an updated law enforcement bulletin on laws prohibiting hate crimes, a hate crimes rapid response protocol for the deployment of DOJ resources, guidance to prosecutors to help strengthen hate crimes prosecution enforcement, and a fact sheet to help Californians understand their rights and protections under hate crime laws. These, and other resources can be found on oag.ca.gov/HATECRIMES.  

Attorney General Bonta launched the Racial Justice Bureau, which, among other things, supports the California Department of Justice’s broader mandate to advance the civil rights of all Californians by assisting with new and ongoing efforts to combat hate and bias. Beginning in 2021, the Attorney General began proactively engaging with local city leaders in the biggest cities in California through roundtables in San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, Riverside, Long Beach, Santa Ana, San Jose, Stockton, Anaheim, Bakersfield, Fresno, and Irvine. More broadly, the Attorney General is deeply committed to responding to the needs of historically marginalized and underrepresented communities and, in July 2021, also launched the Office of Community Awareness, Response, and Engagement to work directly with community organizations and members of the public as part of the effort to advance justice for all Californians.

DOJ's Office of Community Awareness, Response, and Engagement will host a virtual Community Briefing on Wednesday, July 30th at 1pm PT to share highlights and findings from the report. People interested can register here: https://doj-ca.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_vDq6h0e1TbKG3D-DWByjfQ#/registration

Members of the public can further explore the most recent hate crime data on OpenJustice.

The 2024 Hate Crime in California Report can be found here. 

SAN DIEGO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) fourth report on immigration detention facilities operating in California where noncitizens are detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In an effort to increase transparency in these facilities, DOJ staff and a team of experts reviewed each of the six locked immigration detention facilities in operation in the state.   

“California has a responsibility to understand the conditions in which all our residents live, including people who are detained at immigration detention facilities. My office’s review of facilities in California shows that issues previously identified have persisted, while new findings make clear that these facilities need significant improvements to fall in compliance with ICE’s own detention standards,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California’s facility reviews remain especially critical in light of efforts by the Trump Administration to both eliminate oversight of conditions at immigration detention facilities and increase its inhumane campaign of mass immigration enforcement, potentially exacerbating critical issues already present in these facilities by packing them with more people.”

BACKGROUND

The report is intended to provide members of the public and policymakers with critical information about the conditions that people in civil immigration detention in California are subjected to. In response to growing concerns for the health and safety of people in civil immigration detention, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 103 in 2017 to require DOJ to review and report on conditions of confinement at immigration detention facilities through July 1, 2027. These concerns remain with respect to the immigration detention facilities still in operation in the state. During the review process for this report, DOJ staff — with support from a team of correctional and health care experts — reviewed each of the six locked immigration detention facilities in operation in the state, all of which are privately operated. As part of the review of each facility, the DOJ team toured each facility, reviewed and analyzed logs, policies, detainee records, and other documentation, and interviewed detention staff and 154 detained individuals across the six detention facilities. 

THE 2025 REPORT

The 2025 report provides a comprehensive review of immigration detention facilities in California and closely examines applicable standards in areas including conditions of confinement, security classification and housing, use of force, discipline, restrictive housing, Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) compliance, access to health care, and due process, with a particular focus on mental health. 

The 2019 and 2021 reports offered a comprehensive review of conditions of confinement, the standard of care, and due process protections at facilities operating in California, some of which have since closed, and the 2022 report provided a focused review of how the seven immigration detention facilities operating in California at that time responded to the pandemic in the latter half of 2021, with focus on conditions of confinement and the facilities’ level of compliance with public health and safety measures.

DOJ’s prior reports identified inadequate mental health care services at detention facilities in California. This finding is consistent with research and other reviews of facilities nationwide and concerning given the negative impacts of detention on mental health. Detained people experience high rates of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and increased likelihood of self-harm behavior. All these conditions can worsen with increased lengths of time spent in detention facilities. As such, the 2025 report includes a particular focus on the mental health needs of detained individuals, including the availability and quality of mental health services, the prevalence of mental health conditions in the detained population, and the ways conditions of confinement in these facilities impact both mental health conditions and the due process rights of detained individuals.

Immigration enforcement and detention appears likely to continue to increase across the country under the Trump Administration, as evidenced by the significant increase of individuals held in ICE custody in California: as of April 2025, 3,104 people were held in detention. Future increases in population levels at detention facilities will have implications for the facilities’ ability to provide for health care and other detainee needs. At present, California has an approximate 7,000 detention bed capacity across all facilities which is poised to grow. This year, private detention center owners moved to expand new detention space to two facilities in Kern County.

Some of the latest report’s key observations include: 

Pat Downs: DOJ was particularly concerned with Mesa Verde’s pat down search policy, in which detained persons were subjected to pat down searches anytime they left their housing unit. Detained individuals described the searches as invasive and inappropriate and reported a chilling effect on detained people’s decisions about whether to obtain medical and mental health services and meals. The policy resulted in allegations of sexual assault and numerous complaints from detained people against facility staff. 

Medical Health Records: Recordkeeping, maintenance, and review of health care files at all six facilities were deficient. Without appropriate and comprehensive records, providers were often unable to create and implement adequate treatment plans. 

Suicide Prevention and Intervention: DOJ identified a deficiency in suicide prevention and intervention strategies in every facility. This finding is particularly concerning because of the high suicide risk in detained populations.  

Use of Force Practices: At different facilities, staff appeared to be overutilizing discipline and use of force and did not consider mental health conditions prior to engaging in calculated use of force incidents — as is required by ICE’s standards of care. DOJ identified disproportionate use of force against individuals with mental health diagnoses.

Discipline: At Golden State, detainees were over-disciplined, including for making complaints.

Solitary Confinement: Solitary confinement is associated with negative mental health outcomes and exacerbation of existing mental health conditions. Facilities generally not did not conduct mental health reviews required by ICE’s detention standards before placing detained people in segregation (also commonly known as solitary confinement) to avoid worsening existing mental health conditions. Some detained people spent periods of several months to over a year in conditions of isolation, which is harmful for any detained person but presents particular risk to those with underlying mental health conditions.

Medical Care: Across most facilities, detained persons faced delays in securing adequate medical care. At Mesa Verde, detainees face prolonged wait times for critical offsite care.  At Desert View, there were some lapses with respect to the management of infectious diseases which are of particular concern in a facility seeing a high volume and high turnover of detainees who need appropriate treatment. At Otay Mesa, the DOJ team identified some lapses in the quality and timeliness of diagnostic care.  

Due Process: Detention facilities did not consistently satisfy their obligations to support detained people to ensure that mental health conditions did not negatively impact their immigration outcomes. For example, DOJ received reports that detained people appeared for court without having received prescribed medication or other needed treatment, which meant they could not meaningfully participate in their hearings.  

DOJ's Office of Community Awareness, Response, and Engagement will host a Community Briefing on Thursday, May 22 at 10am to share the findings of this report. People interested can register here: https://doj-ca.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_8P7Xa1_3QoSdCJts3EnfbA

A copy of the report is available here. A copy of the executive summary is also available in Spanish here.  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, along with 21 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in support of Susman Godfrey LLP’s lawsuit seeking to block the Trump Administration from retaliating against the firm and its attorneys. The Trump Administration’s actions against Susman Godfrey are part of a larger campaign by President Trump to silence lawyers and law firms that represent individuals and causes that he does not agree with. In the amicus brief, the attorneys general defend the rule of law and ask the court to permanently halt the Trump Administration’s retaliatory actions.

“Everybody is entitled to legal access and vigorous representation without fear of retribution. The Trump Administration’s political attack on Susman Godfrey based on the clients and ideas they represent is an attempt to silence people who challenge the President. If allowed to continue, this will have an immediate chilling effect on attorneys nationwide, making it harder for lawyers to provide the critical legal services on which our courts and residents depend,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Along with my fellow attorneys general, I proudly stand in support of Susman Godfrey and all other law firms whose free speech rights are being targeted and strongly condemn President Trump’s effort to silence those he disagrees with.”

Over the past two months, President Trump has issued an unprecedented series of executive orders imposing severe sanctions on law firms whose advocacy, clients, and lawyers he dislikes. Earlier this month, the Trump Administration issued an executive order targeting Susman Godfrey, which sued Fox News for alleged election-related lies. The order strips the firm of active security clearances and terminates federal contracts with the firm and its clients, among other things. Susman Godfrey sued to halt enforcement of the order targeting their firm, citing violations of free speech and unconstitutional interference with the rights of their clients to select lawyers of their choosing.  

In the brief, the attorneys general argue that by retaliating against Susman Godfrey and discriminating based on viewpoint, the Trump Administration is violating the First Amendment and ask the court to permanently halt the Trump Administration’s retaliatory actions. The attorneys general make the point that a well-functioning judicial system depends on the willingness of lawyers to take on difficult cases or unpopular clients without retribution by their government. Any attempts to deter lawyers from representing the full spectrum of clients and causes would undermine judicial systems across the country.  

Attorney General Bonta has vigorously called out President Trump’s assault on the rule of law. Last month, Attorney General Bonta, along with 20 other state attorneys general issued an open letter urging the legal community to stand together in defense of the rule of law in response to President Trump’s recent attacks, which include calls for the impeachment of federal judges and threats of retribution against law firms and attorneys who take or have taken positions in opposition to him or his Administration. Attorney General Bonta also issued a separate statement on the need to speak up and push back when our democratic norms are violated, our legal system undermined, and our laws broken. Attorney General Bonta has filed amicus briefs in support of Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block, law firms that have also been targeted by the Trump Administration over their representation of clients or positions President Trump disagrees with.   

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

A copy of the brief can be found here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, as part of a coalition of 19 attorneys general, today announced filing an amicus brief in Pacito v. Trump in support of a challenge to the suspension of refugee entry and application processing, and the stop work orders for refugee resettlement agencies. In their brief, the attorneys general argue that the Trump Administration's Refugee Ban and Refugee Funding Suspension are unlawful, misrepresent the concerns and interests of states, and undermine states’ ongoing efforts to successfully assimilate and integrate newly arrived refugees.

“The foundation of our nation was built by people seeking to create a better life away from persecution,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Refugees are not a burden — they're a benefit to states. Refugees contribute to our communities both socially and economically as business owners, doctors, teachers, and neighbors. In California, we are home to approximately 50,000 refugee entrepreneurs who bring in an estimated $1.9 billion in business income collectively. The actions by the Trump Administration are unlawful and directly undermine the efforts of states like California to welcome people into our communities.”

Each year, thousands of refugees are admitted into the United States and welcomed into communities across the country where they can connect with services, resources, and members of their family or cultural community; these resources help them not just adjust but thrive. During the first Trump Administration, President Trump issued an executive order requiring states and towns to opt in if they wanted to resettle refugees; despite the order being quickly enjoined, 42 states and more than 100 mayors elected to opt in. States recognize the benefits of refugee resettlement and are proud to be home to large and diverse refugee populations, whose presence not only enriches the social fabric of our states and local communities, but also promotes a vibrant economy.

The Refugee Ban, which imposes by executive order an indefinite suspension on all refugee entry and refugee application processing, conflicts with the established Refugee Act by suspending entry and final approvals even for “follow-to-join” refugees — the spouses or unmarried under-21-year-old children of admitted refugees — despite Congress’s judgment that those persons “shall” be entitled to admission so long as they are not specifically barred on other grounds.

The Refugee Funding Suspension, which relies on the President's executive order regarding foreign aid, suspends federal funding for resettlement agencies that help refugees apply for admission and help refugees who have been admitted into our country and are already present in the states. The suspension directly prevents agencies from fulfilling their statutorily mandated task of providing basic needs and ensuring economic self-sufficiency and effective resettlement of refugees.

In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to grant a preliminary injunction preventing this order from going into effect, arguing that both the Refugee Ban and the Refugee Funding Suspension are unlawful and:

• Conflict and misrepresent states interests, ignoring states’ existing role in the distribution of refugees before their placements; and
• Harm states by disrupting critical work to assimilate and integrate refugees by depriving them of basic needs and essential services.

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Washington, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.  

A copy of the brief can be found here.

SAN FRANCISCO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today delivered remarks on California Department of Justice’s preparations to protect California’s values, people, and natural resources ahead of a second Trump Administration. To view a recording of the press conference, please visit here. 

Attorney General Bonta's Remarks as Prepared for Delivery:

As the reality of a second Trump Administration takes hold, I know there is a great deal of fear, sadness, anxiety, and panic. 

I understand. 

I’m here today to reassure you that in California, progress will prevail. 

No matter who is in the White House, no matter who holds control of Congress, in California we will keep moving forward. 

In California, we will choose calm over chaos. 

Fact over fiction.

Belonging over blame.

Unity over division. 

“Us and we” over “I and me.” 

It’s why we’re the 5th largest economy in the world. Not in spite of our commitment to workers, consumers, and the environment, because of it. 

Because we’re the largest and most diverse state in the nation.

Because we believe in the power of inclusivity.

Because we believe in truth over lies. Hope over hate. Light over dark.

Because  we believe in looking forward.

It’s who we are in the Golden State. It’s in our DNA. Nothing and no one can change that. 

As Attorney General, I’ll continue to use the full force of the law and authority of this office to address injustice. 

To stand up for all people, especially those who have long been overlooked and undervalued.

To safeguard reproductive rights. 

And advocate for more housing — especially more affordable housing for lower and middle-income families just trying to get by.

I’ll continue to take on greedy corporate giants and fight for more affordable gas, groceries, and everything in between.  

I’ll continue to defend our world-renowned natural resources and protect them for generations to come. 

Continue to fight for clean water to drink and clean air to breathe.

Continue to crack down on illicit guns on our streets and get fentanyl out of our neighborhoods. 

Continue to fight for workers.

I’ll continue to protect, defend, and serve every single Californian. No matter your politics. 

I’m here to ensure every person — no matter how they look, how much money they make, where they’re from, who they love, how they identify, or how they pray — can pursue their version of the California Dream. 

A fair wage and good benefits.  

A safe and affordable place to live.  

Affordable and accessible health care. 

Good schools to send our kids to. 

Safe neighborhoods to raise our families. 

That’s my promise to you, no matter who is in the White House.  

We’ve been here before.

We lived through Trump 1.0. 

We know what he’s capable of. 

We know what plans he has in store. 

The silver lining is just that: we know. 

We know to take Trump at his word when he says he’ll roll back environmental protections, go after our immigrant and LGBTQ+ communities, attack our civil rights, and restrict access to essential reproductive care.

Which means, we won’t be flat-footed come January.

You can be sure that as California Attorney General, if Trump attacks your rights: I’ll be there. 

If Trump comes after your freedoms: I’ll be there. 

If Trump jeopardizes your safety and well-being: I’ll be there.

California DOJ did it before and we’ll do it again.  

During the last Trump Administration, California DOJ fought to stop illegal rollbacks and proposals that would’ve harmed the well-being, health, safety, and civil rights of our people and of people across the country. 

That would have caused irrevocable damage to our environment.

No matter who is in charge of the federal government…

No matter what the incoming Administration has in store… California will remain the steadfast beacon of progress it has long been.  

A constant, unwavering, immoveable force to be reckoned with.  

We’ll continue to be a check on overreach and push back on abuse of power. 

Be the antidote to dangerous, extremist, hateful vitriol.

Be the blueprint of progress for the nation to look to.

Remember: in moments of chaos in D.C., you can always look to California for calm resolve. 

California leaders across the state are ready to stand arm-in-arm. 

Governor Newsom and every single Constitutional Officer;  

Senator Padilla and Senator-elect Schiff;  

Democratic members of Congress; 

Pro Tem McGuire, Speaker Rivas, and the California Legislature; 

Mayors, supervisors, and city councilmembers from San Francisco to San Diego are ready to fight for our California values. 

For our people. For our environment.

For progress and justice.

And as necessary, we’re ready to take on the challenges of a second Trump Administration — together.

While a great deal of change is on the horizon…

California’s path to progress remains full steam ahead.

It may not always be linear. Progress so rarely is. 

It zigs and zags. Takes frustrating detours. Inches forward and backward and forward again. 

The detours and setbacks don’t define our progress.

Our commitment to forward momentum defines our progress. Defines us. 

It’s what we do next that will define us. 

If you’re feeling despondent today, remember that you’re not alone. 

In California, we’re not looking back. We’re not moving back. 

We’re California! We’ll meet any challenges head on and rise to the occasion.

As is so often said, as California goes, so goes the nation.

In the days and months and years to come, all eyes will look west. 

In California, they’ll see: we’re still moving forward.

Thank you.