Federal Accountability

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 24 attorneys general and two governors, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit over the Trump Administration's unlawful implementation of new Medicaid work requirements included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Specifically, the lawsuit challenges provisions of an interim final rule published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on June 3, 2026. Medicaid is the nation’s safety net healthcare program for low-income Americans and is jointly funded by states and the federal government, with the federal government providing at least 50% of the cost of services.

Congress created exemptions from Medicaid’s work requirements to ensure that people with serious illnesses and disabilities do not lose coverage or face interruptions in care. Despite months of working with states on implementation, CMS surprised states with the interim final rule, “Community Engagement Requirement for Certain Individuals,” which adopted a new interpretation of key terms like “medically frail” and makes it harder for medically vulnerable individuals to be excused from the work requirements. While the work requirement provision applies beginning January 1, 2027, states must notify Medicaid recipients about these changes by August 31, 2026, and need significant lead time to prepare those communications. They cannot wait for CMS to address the deficiencies through the ongoing rulemaking process. As a result, the coalition is seeking to block implementation of the interim final rule’s illegal provisions and to have them ultimately struck down. States had already made substantial investments in reliance on the plain language of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and CMS’s prior guidance and now face the risk of harsh financial penalties for noncompliance with the interim final rule.

“People with serious illnesses or disabilities already face major challenges in their daily lives — they shouldn’t also have to worry about losing their healthcare because of work requirements or related barriers. That was Congress’s will, and it must be respected,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Time and again, the Trump Administration has pursued policies that threaten the most vulnerable among us. The interim final rule is the latest example. We won't stop fighting back.”

The interim final rule makes other changes that increase administrative burdens, create unnecessary red tape, and put eligible people at risk of losing their health coverage — including those who are already working or qualify for an exemption. The rule disregards substantial evidence that should have been considered, fails to adequately evaluate reasonable alternatives, and does not give states clear or workable guidance. Past Medicaid work requirement programs have shown that added red tape causes eligible people to lose coverage, placing greater strain on state Medicaid programs, safety net providers, and emergency rooms, while increasing costs as more medically frail residents become uninsured.

States raised concerns with CMS about potential last-minute changes. For instance, Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, contacted CMS to express California’s “significant concerns should CMS materially alter its prior guidance on Medicaid work requirements in the forthcoming interim final rule.” California explained that it had “relied extensively on CMS’s preliminary guidance over the last several months to design, build, and operationalize major programmatic, systems, and staffing changes in order to comply with H.R. 1 by January 1, 2027.”

In today’s lawsuit, the coalition alleges that the interim final rule:

• Unlawfully narrows Congress's protections for medically frail Medicaid recipients.
• Violates the Administrative Procedure Act by ignoring substantial evidence that work reporting requirements cause eligible individuals to lose healthcare coverage because of administrative barriers rather than a failure to work.
• Fails to adequately consider the significant harms that will be imposed on states, Medicaid beneficiaries, healthcare providers, and state healthcare systems.
• Unconstitutionally coerces states by imposing new compliance requirements after states had already begun implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act based on the statute’s plain language and CMS's prior guidance. 

The lawsuit was co-led by Attorney General Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, and New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport. They were joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

OAKLAND — As part of a coalition of 19 attorneys general and two governors, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a supplemental complaint challenging the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the Continuum of Care (CoC) Program. CoC is the federal government’s flagship program for funding affordable housing and other services for individuals at risk of and experiencing homelessness. With this filing, the coalition is addressing HUD's latest unlawful actions and updating its existing case, which was filed in November 2025 in response to the 2025 CoC NOF, allowing the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to efficiently resolve all related claims in one proceeding. In December 2025, the coalition secured a preliminary injunction blocking HUD from implementing the 2025 CoC NOFO, and in April 2026, secured another victory when HUD abandoned its appeal of the preliminary injunction. The coalition alleges that HUD’s new funding notice once again seeks to steer funding away from permanent housing projects, despite a federal court order blocking HUD's previous attempt and Congress’ subsequent action protecting renewal funding for those projects.

“A federal court has already blocked HUD’s unlawful attempt to defund permanent housing projects that are home for more than 400,000 people. Congress has made clear that those projects must be funded at adequate levels,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Instead of following the law, the Trump Administration is again trying to reverse HUD’s decades-long policy of prioritizing housing before advancing other goals. This would jeopardize housing for thousands of people and put them at risk of returning to the streets. We will not stand idly by."

Despite the court victories and Congress’ action, HUD issued a FY 2026 CoC NOFO in June 2026 that again limits funding for permanent housing by setting aside approximately $1.3 billion for transitional housing and supportive service-only projects. In the supplemental complaint, the coalition argues that the set-aside would effectively cap permanent housing funding below levels necessary to maintain existing projects. The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates this could put at least 97,000 residents of CoC-funded permanent housing at risk of losing their housing. Well over 80% of CoC funds currently go to support permanent housing. The complaint also challenges new scoring criteria that penalize applicants for continuing to follow HUD’s longstanding Housing First approach. The criteria steer funding away from proven low-barrier housing that gets people off the streets and toward programs that impose conditions before people can access housing. The new policies fundamentally undermine CoC's goal of ensuring that individuals and families who have exited homelessness are not forced back onto the streets and Congress’ directive that HUD prioritize renewal funding to achieve this goal.

In filing the supplemental complaint, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 23 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement after the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the coalition’s motion for summary judgment and permanently blocked key provisions of Executive Order No. 14399 — President Trump's second elections-related Executive Order — from taking effect in the 24 plaintiff states through the November 3, 2026 general election. Specifically, the court struck down the provision ordering the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to create “State Citizenship Lists” of eligible voters and threatening prosecution of state officials who mail ballots to ineligible voters, as well as the provision directing the United States Postal Service to initiate rulemaking to create its own voter eligibility lists and limit the mailing of absentee ballots to voters not included on those lists. According to the court, these provisions “are ultra vires and unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers[.]” 

“Just yesterday, President Trump’s first elections-related Executive Order was blocked. Now, his second elections-related Executive Order has suffered the same fate, and rightfully so. As the federal judge wrote in today’s decision, ‘The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.’ Those powers are reserved to the States and Congress,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Democracy doesn’t work on its own — it requires constant vigilance. And that’s what my fellow attorneys general and I will continue to provide.” 

In April 2026, the coalition filed a lawsuit challenging Executive Order No. 14399. The coalition was co-led by Attorney General Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, and included the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin, as well as Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. Later in April 2026, the coalition filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court ruled on today.

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 — Co-leading a coalition of 19 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement after the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the coalition’s motion for a permanent injunction and blocked key provisions of Executive Order No. 14248 from taking effect. Issued by President Trump on March 25, 2025, the Executive Order attempted to conscript state election officials in the President’s campaign to impose documentary proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration, force States to ignore mail ballots that are cast by Election Day but received by election officials just days afterward, and withhold various streams of federal funding from the States if they fail to comply. The coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the Executive Order in April 2025, secured a preliminary injunction blocking unlawful provisions of the Executive Order in June 2025, and successfully defeated the Trump Administration’s motion to dismiss in September 2025. The coalition filed a motion for a permanent injunction in December 2025, and the court heard oral argument in February 2026.

“We sued President Trump over his attempt to unilaterally impose voting restrictions across the country — and we won,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today, a federal district court ruled that every provision we challenged in the Executive Order is unlawful and reaffirmed that the power to regulate elections is reserved to the States and Congress. While we are proud of this result, we are clear-eyed that President Trump’s attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down. So let me be clear: we will keep fighting back every step of the way.” 

Attorney General Bonta and Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford co-led the filing of the April 2025 lawsuit. Joining them were the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. 

In April 2026, Attorney General Bonta also co-led a coalition of 23 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania in challenging Executive Order No. 14399, the second elections-related Executive Order issued by President Trump. Executive Order No. 14399 attempts to interfere with States’ constitutional authority to administer elections by restricting voter eligibility and mail voting to lists of voters pre-authorized by the federal government. The coalition filed a motion for summary judgment later in April 2026 in order to permanently block those changes, which the court has yet to rule on. 

Litigation and manufactured “settlement” agreement designed to create a tax-payer funded windfall for President Trump and his family

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, leading a coalition of 23 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to carefully scrutinize the parties’ conduct and purported “settlement” agreement in Trump v. IRS. In January 2026, President Trump, his family, and his business organization filed suit against the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) asserting claims related to the disclosure of President Trump’s tax return information by a government contractor. The District Court noted the possible lack of real adversity between the parties to the lawsuit and was skeptical of its own jurisdiction, but shortly before briefing on that issue was due, President Trump voluntarily dismissed his claims and entered into a “settlement” agreement with the Department of Justice granting President Trump and his family immunity from all investigations and prosecutions related to past conduct and requiring the Department of Justice to establish a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization” fund. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the lawsuit, and subsequent settlement, are nothing more than a collusive fraud engineered to violate the constitutional limits on presidential authority under the veneer of a settlement, all at the expense of American taxpayers.
 
“At a time when millions of families are struggling to afford the cost of food and gas, President Trump’s blatantly corrupt lawsuit and astonishing settlement with his own Department of Justice amounts to nothing more than a taxpayer-funded political patronage program,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We cannot become desensitized to the self-dealing and rank partisanship by this Administration. We cannot standby and sanction the President Trump’s latest boondoggle. We urge the Court to take a closer look.”
 
Prior to President Trump’s abrupt dismissal of his complaint, the District Court recognized that there was a threshold jurisdictional question posed by a complaint brought by the President against agencies whose leadership serves at his pleasure and ordered the parties to brief the question of whether a case or controversy existed in this matter. The District Court is now considering reopening Trump v. IRS under Rule 60, which permits a court to set aside a judgment and reopen a case on the basis that there was fraud or deception perpetrated by parties upon the court. In today’s brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition offer their perspective as the chief law officers of their states, highlighting that the self-dealing and corrupt nature of this settlement agreement is antithetical to the responsibilities of attorneys general and the rule of law.
 
The coalition argues that the timing of the dismissal of President Trum’s claims and the irregularities of the settlement itself indicate that this case was collusive and an attempted end-run around constitutional limits on Executive Branch authority. The coalition highlights that the settlement contravenes basic principles of contract and settlement law, is untethered to the value of President Trump’s claims, which suffer from fatal legal deficiencies, and may transgress legal and policy limits on DOJ’s settlement authority. The coalition emphasizes that this kind of collusion between a President and a Department he oversees undermines the separation of powers, public confidence in the court system, the powers exercised by state attorneys general, and the rule of law.
 
Attorney General Bonta was outspoken this year in defense of the rule of law. Along with other state attorneys general, he issued an open letter to the legal community in response to President Trump’s calls for the impeachment of federal judges and threats of retribution against law firms. He stood with WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, and Perkins Coie in amicus briefs in support of their lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s retaliatory executive orders targeting law firms that represent clients or positions it disagrees with. And he issued a separate statement on the need to speak up and push back when our democratic norms are violated, our legal system is undermined, and our laws are broken. 
 
The Attorney General also sent letters to the U.S. Department of Justice raising alarm about the abuse of executive power with the indictments of New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey and challenging Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr’s campaign of censorship that led to the suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) challenging its latest attack on California's efforts to improve air quality and protect public health. Last week, EPA purported to reclassify four Clean Air Act preemption waivers previously granted to California as “rules” subject to Congressional disapproval and sent them to Congress in apparent pursuit of such disapproval. The four waivers — which allow California to implement CARB’s 2008 Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for cars; CARB’s 2012 emissions standards for cars (Advanced Clean Cars I or ACC I Rule); the Biden Administration’s 2022 reinstatement of parts of the ACC I waiver after the first Trump Administration purported to administratively rescind them; and the 2022 Small Offroad Engine (SORE) Rule amendments — enable California to enforce state-level emission standards to address its severe air pollution. In over 50 years since the Clean Air Act was enacted, waivers have never been considered rules subject to Congressional disapproval. Nor have any other agency orders that adjudicate requests for permission, such as oil and gas leases or mining permits. However, last week, EPA purported to reclassify these waivers as rules and submitted them to Congress in an unlawful attempt to end-run administrative procedure and tee up a Congressional attack on California’s vehicle emissions rules. In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Attorney General Bonta, Governor Newsom, and CARB challenge EPA’s unlawful reclassification of California’s waivers and ask the court to find EPA’s actions unlawful. 

“The Trump Administration is doubling down on its unlawful attack on California’s longstanding authority to address air pollution and adopt clean vehicle and equipment standards that protect our State and residents,” said Attorney General Bonta. “For fifty years, both Democratic and Republican administrations have agreed that EPA Clean Air Act waivers are not rules, and EPA's unlawful attempt to reclassify them — years after the fact — is an illegal attempt to take down these important tools. These latest illegal actions would mean more pollution, poorer air quality, more market uncertainty, and greater health risks for communities already overburdened by emissions. California will continue to fight against the Trump Administration's lawless overreach and vigorously defend our authority to protect the health and well-being of our communities and the environment.”   

“While the federal government creates chaos and gets caught up in short‑sighted political fights, California is staying focused on our commitment to uphold the right to breathe clean air,” said California Air Resources Board Chair Lauren Sanchez. “Using the Congressional Review Act this way is illegal. It puts the health of millions of Californians at risk by compromising our ability to meet national air quality standards and could cut off critical transportation funding that our communities and businesses rely on. California will not stand by idly — we will defend our authority, protect public health, and continue working toward a cleaner, healthier future.”
 

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set federal emission standards for air pollutants from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines (and for new off-road vehicles and engines) that cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare. The Clean Air Act allows California to adopt more stringent emission requirements independent of EPA’s regulations, and the Act requires EPA to approve preemption waivers for those requirements absent certain, limited circumstances not present here. Historically, EPA —  under both Republican and Democratic administrations —  has granted California more than 75 preemption waivers for updates to the State’s emissions control programs. As Congress intended, these waivers have allowed California to improve those programs, which pre-existed the federal government’s efforts to regulate these emissions via the Clean Air Act.

EPA has always taken the position that Clean Air Act preemption waivers are “orders,” not “rules,” and are thus not subject to the CRA.  In February 2025, President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin reversed course, purporting to reclassify three preemption waivers as “rules” and submitting them to Congress. Attorney General Bonta, joined by Governor Newsom and CARB, led a multistate lawsuit against the federal government challenging the unprecedented and unlawful attempt to use the CRA. 

The complaint filed today alleges that EPA’s attempt to reclassify California’s waivers violated the Administrative Procedure Act and was ultra vires.  The complaint asks the court to declare the EPA’s reclassification to be unlawful and to restore the status quo that existed before EPA acted. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a coalition of 19 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in Lemmon v. Trump, which challenges the Trump Administration’s plans to construct a monumental arch in the District of Columbia without obtaining required congressional approval. The plans for the 250-foot structure — commonly referred to as Independence Arch or Triumphal Arch — disregard legal procedures and would significantly degrade the aesthetic, historical, and professional interests of the nation’s capital and those who visit or live there. The brief, which supports a motion for summary judgement, challenges the Trump Administration’s failure to seek congressional approval to construct the proposed arch and highlights the states’ collective interest in ensuring that the capital remains faithful to the Founders’ vision of a place for all Americans.

“This proposed arch isn’t a presidential triumph; it’s a monumental tragedy. Across the country, everyday Americans are struggling with affordability, but Trump’s attention seems to be focused on himself,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Much like the wrestling circus this past weekend, this project is a vanity exercise that will hurt the historical and functional value of our nation’s capital. That’s why my fellow attorneys general and I are calling on the court to halt this overreach of authority. Americans deserve a capital that tells the story of the nation and its people, not a person.”  

In October 2025, President Trump announced plans to construct a new monumental arch planned to be as tall as 250 feet — more than double the size of the Lincoln Memorial. When asked who the arch was for, Trump told a journalist: “Me.” Its location on Memorial Circle would situate the monument on an axis between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, obstructing a line of sight that was designed to represent the unification of the nation following the Civil War and that has existed for nearly a century. As currently proposed, the arch would disrupt the ceremonial entrance to Arlington National Cemetery and the more than 400,000 active-duty service members, veterans, and their families who rest there. It would also pose a hazard to air travel at the nearby Reagan National Airport and would likely increase traffic at Memorial Circle which is heavily used by motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians both for recreation and for commuting.

Since the 18th century, the placement of monuments in the nation’s capital has been the subject of careful and deliberate design. By statute, congressional approval is required for construction of symbolic and commemorative works in the nation’s capital but in February 2026, it was reported that President Trump would imminently order construction to start without approval from Congress under the Commemorative Works Act. Other statutes — including but not limited to, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA) — also impose procedural requirements that must be satisfied before such federal projects can be executed.

In the brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition assert that:

• The District of Columbia is a capital for all Americans with monuments and memorials that echo, honor, and celebrate the history of the entire nation, States included.
• Congressional approval and regulatory review of new monuments safeguard the capital’s national character.
• The planned arch raises substantial concerns that the statutory process would address.

In filing this brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Virginia, the District of Columbia, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

Urges Court of Appeals to uphold dismissal of Trump Administration lawsuit  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday joined a coalition of 22 attorneys general in defending a district court’s dismissal of the Trump Administration’s lawsuit challenging the Protect Our Courts Act (POCA), a New York law that prohibits civil arrests in state courthouses unless backed by a judicial order, as well as two executive orders that promote public safety in state government buildings. The amicus brief, filed by Attorney General Bonta and the coalition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, explains that POCA reflects a historical common-law privilege from civil arrests at state courthouses, which is an arrest of a person to ensure that he or she appears in a civil proceeding, rather than on criminal charges. The brief also states that POCA and the executive orders are commonsense exercises of New York’s sovereign authority to control its property and resources, and that the challenged measures are all lawful.

“The Trump Administration wants to go after victims and witnesses of crimes when they come to court to testify,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This deters these individuals from coming forward to report crimes and makes our communities less safe, not more. New York law limits civil arrests at public buildings like courthouses — a constitutional and thoughtful exercise of state authority. California has enacted similar protections for our state’s residents. As Attorney General, I will always stand up for public safety and the rights of our immigrant communities, and I stand behind our sister states who have done the same.” 

Attorney General Bonta and the attorneys general explain in the amicus brief that one purpose of POCA, which New York passed in 2020, is to protect individuals who attend court proceedings, as parties or witnesses, from civil immigration enforcement. The law built on two executive orders that limit civil immigration arrests in state facilities and that direct employees to generally refrain from involvement with federal civil immigration enforcement, unless required by law.

In June 2025, the Trump Administration filed a lawsuit challenging POCA and the two executive orders, alleging they are preempted by the Immigration and Nationality Act and that they violate principles of intergovernmental immunity. After a district court dismissed the lawsuit in November 2025, the Trump Administration appealed that decision. 

In their brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that POCA is consistent with long-standing state statutes that prohibit civil arrests in state courthouses to preserve state judicial system functionality, and that the executive orders are consistent with measures taken by other states to limit state officials’ involvement with civil immigration enforcement. The coalition explains that empirical evidence shows that such measures ensure that state residents feel free to participate in court proceedings, cooperate with law enforcement and access basic state services, including education and healthcare. The coalition argues that POCA and the executive orders are constitutional under long-standing principles of federalism, including the basic rule that the federal government cannot require states to assist in enforcing federal law. 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to holding ICE accountable and standing up for California’s immigrant communities. Earlier this week, Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit seeking to block the illegal development of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in unincorporated Santa Clara County near Gilroy, California. Attorney General Bonta previously led amicus briefs in supporting Minnesota’s lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s extraordinary campaign of lawlessness during its deployment of ICE, in opposing unlawful immigration stops in the Central Valley, and to stop ICE and Customs and Border Protection from engaging in unlawful practices in Los Angeles.  

Last month, Attorney General Bonta released the California Department of Justice’s fifth report on cruel, inhumane, and unacceptable conditions at immigration detention facilities operating in California. He also filed an amicus brief opposing the conditions of confinement at Adelanto ICE Processing Center and sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security shining a light on dangerous conditions at the recently reopened California City Detention Facility.

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

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 20 attorneys general in suing the Trump Administration over the addition of new terms to federal contracts that — in the name of purging “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) — impose unclear and confusing requirements on federal contractors and subcontractors. These terms depart from antidiscrimination policies that contractors have followed for many decades. The Trump Administration is also threatening severe penalties on federal contractors that do not comply, yet fails to provide adequate notice of what is prohibited. In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition challenge the federal agencies’ unlawful, confusing, and ambiguous requirements.

“The Trump Administration keeps moving the goal posts, most recently imposing vague, confusing, and unsupported new conditions on billions of dollars in federal contracts,” said Attorney General Bonta. “It is not doing so for the sake of efficiency or good government — and it is certainly not doing so out of concern for preventing racial discrimination. Instead, this appears to be yet another attack on lawful diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. We’re going to court — again — to protect the interests of our state and put a stop to the Trump Administration’s latest unlawfulness.”  

In implementing Executive Order No. 14398, federal agencies took shortcuts around regular procedures designed to promote good government. For example, the agencies failed to invite comments from the public as required by law. Largely because of these shortcuts, contractors have no clear guidance on what the new contract terms require in practice, or whether or how the new requirements differ from existing laws that already prohibit racial discrimination. Contractors that fail to comply can face severe penalties, including cancellation of their contracts, exclusion from all future federal contracts, and meritless lawsuits under the False Claims Act. The vague and confusing contract terms impose needless costs on contractors and threaten to chill lawful efforts to prevent, detect, and remedy discrimination.   

California and its agencies regularly contract with the federal government, and the coalition states collectively hold existing federal contracts worth billions of dollars. Federal agencies began adding the new terms into contracts in April 2026 and have been directed to modify existing contracts by July 24, 2026. The federal government estimates the order could affect as many as 640,000 contracts and subcontracts nationwide, including more than 160,000 contracts with over 34,000 unique vendors. In California, several billion dollars in federal contracts with state agencies are impacted.

In the lawsuit, the coalition alleges that the federal agencies effectuating the executive order and its implementing actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide notice to the public or accept comments as required by federal procurement law, exceeding their legal authority, and neglecting to adequately explain or justify the new requirements. The coalition asks the court to hold the agencies’ actions unlawful and enjoin the agencies from imposing the new contract terms. 

Attorney General Bonta is co-leading the lawsuit alongside the attorneys general of Maryland and Illinois. Joining them are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaiʻi, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.