Federal Accountability

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday led a coalition of 20 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief opposing the Trump Administration’s efforts to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement, which has been in place since 1997. The Flores Settlement Agreement provides crucial protections against the inappropriate detention of children and ensures the children in immigration custody are held in facilities licensed in and subject to oversight by the states in which they reside. In May 2025, the Trump Administration moved to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement with the goal of expanding family detention and increasing the duration of child detention. In the brief filed, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to block the Trump Administration’s latest attempt to end the Flores Settlement Agreement and to prevent the Administration from keeping children in prolonged and unnecessary detention. 

“It is shocking, vile, but unfortunately unsurprising that the Trump Administration is once again trying to strip away decades-old protections designed to keep immigrant children safe. No child deserves to be left in potentially unsafe or unhealthy conditions, or subjected to prolonged confinement,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Shame on this Administration for using vulnerable immigrant children as political pawns to further their ideological agenda. California will continue to fight for the protection, welfare, and safety of all children, regardless of their immigration status.”

For almost 30 years, the Flores Settlement Agreement has ensured the safety and wellbeing of children in immigration custody through the enforcement of state child welfare laws. The agreement requires that children be held in state-licensed facilities under oversight, released without unnecessary delay to parents, guardians, or licensed programs, and placed in the least restrictive setting appropriate to their age and needs. It also sets standards for education, recreation, and overall care, establishes conditions of confinement, and provides monitoring to protect children while in custody. Maintaining this arrangement for immigrant youth is crucial to ensure that states can protect the rights and wellbeing of all children in their care, regardless of immigration status.

In 2019, California sued when the first Trump Administration attempted to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement. California and other states also supported challenges to these actions, and a district court halted almost all of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s regulations and declined to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement. Over time, some claims were resolved, and in 2024, the Biden Administration adopted new rules that restored and strengthened protections for unaccompanied children. Upon re-entering office, the Trump Administration once again tried to completely terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement and revert to the 2019 Department of Homeland Security rule. After this action was rejected by a district court, the federal government appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit.

In the brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the Trump Administration’s attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement interferes with states’ traditional and sovereign role to help ensure the health, safety, and welfare of children by undermining state licensing requirements for facilities where children are held. The termination would result in the vast expansion of family detention centers, which are not state licensed facilities and have historically caused increased trauma in children, and prolong the time children spend in immigration detention, causing significant long-term harm to their physical, mental, and emotional health, disrupting their development and educational needs and increasing burdens to the states that provide services to support them.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to continuing to fight for children already within our borders who need more protection, not less. Attorney General Bonta recently filed a comment letter opposing a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rule rolling back protections for unaccompanied children.

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

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, co-leading a multistate coalition along with New York Attorney General Letitia James, filed an amicus brief opposing a federal policy that mandates the indefinite detention of many undocumented immigrants without the opportunity for a bond hearing. In a brief filed in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, the coalition challenges the unprecedented reinterpretation of immigration law by immigration authorities, arguing that the new policy contravenes Congress’s intent and the right to due process and federal statutes, and inflicts widespread harm on families, communities, and states.

“The Trump Administration has carried out its inhumane immigration agenda by abducting, incarcerating, and deporting members of our communities without regard for the rule of law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Its latest policy seeks to indefinitely detain immigrants in violation of their Constitutional right to due process. It’s inhumane and illegal, and I will continue to fight it in every way I can.”

For decades, immigrants living in the U.S. who were placed in removal proceedings had the right to request a bond hearing — a chance to argue for, and be afforded an individualized determination of the propriety of, their release while their immigration case was pending. The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) nationwide adoption of this policy eliminates that right for those who are alleged to have entered the country without inspection, mandating their indefinite detention, even where they may have strong claims for relief. Many of these people have lived in the United States for years and now face confinement in overcrowded, unsafe, and unsanitary facilities with no clear end in sight. As DHS expands its enforcement efforts, millions of additional immigrants could be subjected to mandatory detention under this policy.

This policy also hurts U.S. citizens, over 9 million of whom, including 4 million children, live with an undocumented family member. The detention of these family members can increase the risk of depression, anxiety, and economic instability. Fear of detention already deters immigrant families from seeking healthcare, food assistance, and even reporting crimes. The attorneys general argue that the excessive and unlawful mandatory detention policy only worsens this effect.

This policy doesn’t just harm families, it also costs taxpayers. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that unnecessarily detaining undocumented workers disrupts the labor force and undermines local and state economies. Undocumented immigrants constitute nearly 5% of the U.S. workforce. In 2023, undocumented-led households paid nearly $90 billion in taxes and contributed almost $300 billion in consumer spending. The attorneys general also argue this policy will come at a substantial cost to taxpayers. In 2024, immigration detention cost U.S. taxpayers $3.4 billion – roughly $152 per detainee per day. By contrast, DHS’s own Alternatives to Detention program costs less than $4.20 per day and is equally effective in ensuring court appearances.

The attorneys general urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to grant partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs and strike down DHS’s unlawful policy.

Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock challenges the same “no bond” policy at issue in Bautista v. Noem. Attorneys General Bonta and James led a multistate coalition in filing a similar amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in that case last year. 

Attorneys General Bonta and James lead the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai`i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington in filing the brief.

LOS ANGELES — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, challenging the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) orders that illegally assert exclusive jurisdiction over two California onshore oil pipelines, known as the Las Flores Pipelines or lines CA-324 and CA-325, and allow them to restart operations. Filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Attorney General's petition for review challenges PHMSA’s attempt to evade state regulation through its orders to federalize the Las Flores Pipelines, approve Sable Offshore Corp.'s (Sable) Restart Plan, and issue Sable an emergency permit to restart oil transport through the pipelines. In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the Office of the State Fire Marshal argue that PHMSA's orders violate the Administrative Procedure Act and ask the Court to overturn PHMSA’s illegal orders.

“In its latest unlawful power grab, the Trump Administration is illegally claiming exclusive federal authority over two of California's onshore pipelines. California has seen first-hand the devastating environmental and public health impacts of coastal oil spills — yet the Trump Administration will stop at nothing to evade state regulation which protects against these very disasters,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The President is once again prioritizing his donors over our people and communities. California will not stand idly by as the President endangers California's beautiful coastline and our public health to increase profits for his fossil fuel industry friends.”

"The Office of the State Fire Marshal is committed to its mission to protect the people, property, and natural resources of California," said State Fire Marshal Daniel Berlant. "Our team has worked diligently to uphold the terms of the consent decree and ensure the safety of lines CA 324 and CA 325.”

On December 17, 2025, the federal PHMSA illegally reclassified the Las Flores pipelines that run from Santa Barbara County to Kern County as “interstate.” The reclassification purports to shift oversight over the pipelines from the State Fire Marshal to PHMSA even though the pipelines originate at Las Flores Canyon in Santa Barbara County. Before December 17, 2025, PHMSA had classified these onshore pipelines as intrastate pipelines subject to State safety regulation and oversight. On December 22, 2025, PHMSA issued an order approving Sable’s plan to restart oil production based on President Trump’s bogus “National Energy Emergency” Executive Order that Attorney General Bonta has previously challenged.

The onshore pipelines have been shut down for a decade since the 2015 Refugio Beach oil spill, when a corroded segment of one pipeline ruptured and released hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil near Santa Barbara. The oil spill caused serious harm to public health and safety including releasing hazardous oil and fumes that sickened communities, contaminated coastal waters, harmed hundreds of marine mammals and seabirds, and shut down beaches and fisheries for months — damaging local economies. It resulted in a Consent Decree — to which PHMSA was a party — that expressly acknowledged and approved the State Fire Marshal’s role in reviewing and approving any planned restart of the onshore pipelines. PHMSA’s current position represents a significant departure from this agreement and the way in which PHMSA historically viewed the pipelines.

In the petition, the Attorney General and the State Fire Marshal allege that PHMSA’s orders were arbitrary and capricious and violate the Administrative Procedure Act.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, leading a coalition of 20 attorneys general, yesterday filed an amicus brief in support of Minnesota’s lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s extraordinary campaign of lawlessness during its deployment of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Border Patrol to the Twin Cities area of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Over the course of just a few weeks, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has sent more than 3,000 federal agents into the area. These agents have fatally shot one resident, Renee Good, seriously wounded others, attacked peaceful protestors, and systematically conducted unconstitutional stops and arrests. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to order an immediate halt to the federal government’s lawless actions — actions that are visiting unacceptable harm on Minnesota, its cities, and people, and show unprecedented disregard for foundational constitutional principles. 

“These aggressive and militaristic tactics sanctioned by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and carried out by CBP Commander Greg Bovino blatantly disregard well-established policing norms, state sovereignty, and the sanctity of life,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Just days after Martin Luther King Jr. Day, we are continuing his fight and core belief that an injustice against one is an injustice against all. I urge the court to block the Trump Administration’s lawless actions. As the President himself has said, Minnesota is just the beginning, and if left unchecked, he will no doubt go into and threaten the safety, autonomy, and well-being of more states and communities.”

Beginning in December 2025, DHS began to threaten an escalation in enforcement targeting Minnesota and the Twin Cities area. One operation, dubbed “Operation Metro Surge” — what ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons has called the agency’s “largest immigration operation ever” — follows Donald Trump’s campaign promise of an aggressive mass deportation program that would be the largest in American history. Throughout the operation, public reporting has indicated that Secretary Noem has deployed as many as 3,000 federal immigration officers to Minnesota. Of that number, 2,000 are ICE personnel, hundreds are Border Patrol agents, and others are from U.S. Justice Department agencies. More recently, President Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, and it is reported that the Pentagon is possibly preparing to deploy 1,500 troops to Minnesota. These actions have endangered public safety, with local law enforcement agencies being forced to divert large portions of their forces to respond to unrest caused by the federal officers.  

Since Minnesota filed its lawsuit, violence by ICE agents has only escalated. Just one week after the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a federal law enforcement officer in Minneapolis shot another person in the leg. ICE also exploded a tear gas canister underneath a car carrying a couple and six children, trapping them inside their vehicle, rendering a six-month old child unconscious, and requiring a mother to administer CPR to her infant child. This extreme conduct is ripping at the fabric of society and every aspect of daily life for Minnesotans is being affected. Pregnant women are afraid to go to their prenatal appointments for fear that they or their loved ones will be detained by federal agents. Vibrant shopping centers have turned into ghost towns, and businesses report 50% to 80% in revenue losses due to the presence of immigration officers. As a result of the threats to public safety caused by DHS, more than 100 schools were temporarily shut down in the Minneapolis Public School system, affecting 30,000 children, and school attendance continues to drop with families afraid to send their kids to school.

In their brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that a temporary restraining order is important to protect the public from these deliberately aggressive and unlawful immigration enforcement practices. They highlight that these tactics threaten sovereign powers — like policing and promoting the public safety, health, and welfare of the people — that the Constitution reserves for the states. 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to fighting the Trump Administration’s unlawful militarized tactics. He previously led a coalition in filing an amicus brief opposing unlawful immigration stops in the Central Valley and led a multistate coalition in seeking a temporary restraining order to stop ICE and CBP from engaging in unlawful practices in Los Angeles. Attorney General Bonta recently secured a separate decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ending the continued federalization and deployment of California National Guard troops in and around Los Angeles. 

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

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a coalition of 21 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in support of Harvard University’s lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s unjustified and illegal decision to bar international students from entering the United States to attend the university. The Trump Administration’s attacks come in retaliation to Harvard’s refusal to cave to earlier demands by the President that the university restructure its internal governance, change its hiring and admissions practices, and modify its curriculum. In the brief, the attorneys general urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to uphold the lower court’s preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from implementing or enforcing its unlawful student visa policies.

“The Trump Administration’s attacks against Harvard are unlawful, retaliatory, and fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “But it’s not just an attack on Harvard, it’s an attack on our higher education system, which depends on international students to remain globally competitive. California stands with Harvard in challenging these attacks on academic independence and integrity.”

Colleges and universities across the country — public and private — welcome the presence of international students to sustain local economies, drive innovation, and enrich campus and community life. Each year, international students contribute significantly through tuition, living expenses, and related spending, supporting jobs and economic activity nationwide. In fact, international students pay higher tuition rates which enhance public universities' ability to serve lower-income in-state students by subsidizing reduced tuition rates for domestic students. Beyond their financial impact, international students enrich campus life through their diverse perspectives and contributions to innovation and research advancements that help maintain the competitiveness and prestige of our colleges and universities.

The Trump Administration’s unlawful policies have upended Harvard’s ability to enroll, educate, and employ international students. Without justification, the Trump Administration first revoked Harvard’s certification to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). When the District Court enjoined that revocation, the Administration attempted to circumvent that court order and abruptly issued a sweeping proclamation suspending entry to the United States for any international student studying at Harvard on an F or J visa.

In the amicus brief, the attorneys general argue that if the Trump Administration’s attack on Harvard is not blocked, it would give the Administration license to take similar actions against other universities. In fact, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has made clear that Harvard is just the beginning and warned other schools that the same fate could befall them if they don’t cede to the Trump Administration’s demands.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to defending students' and academic institutions' rights to free speech protected under the First Amendment. In October, Attorney General Bonta co-led a multistate coalition in filing an amicus brief in support of The Stanford Daily in its lawsuit against the Trump Administration over its targeting and punishment of noncitizens with lawful status, especially college students and faculty who express political beliefs with which the Administration disagrees. Similarly, earlier this year, Attorney General Bonta, along with 19 other state attorneys general, filed an amicus brief challenging the Trump Administration's executive orders allowing for the ideologically-motivated revocation of visas for students and faculty who exercise their free speech and association rights. 

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

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a multistate amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. United States Department of Homeland Security, which are challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful policy imposing a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions. H-1B visas allow U.S. employers to hire highly skilled foreign national workers in roles that require specialized skills, including as physicians, researchers, nurses, and other vital workers, to alleviate nationwide labor shortages. The new fee would create a costly barrier for employers, especially public sector and government employers, trying to fill these positions. In the brief, the attorneys general urge the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reject the policy, arguing that it is contrary to the public interest, as it would make it harder to address workforce shortages, weaken the economy, and disrupt essential services. Attorney General Bonta separately led a coalition of 20 attorneys general in challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful H-1B policy in a lawsuit filed in December.

“The Trump Administration’s unprecedented $100,000 visa fee is an attack on our ability to attract the global talent that keeps our universities, schools, and hospitals running. Let me be clear, the H-1B program does not displace domestic workers. Rather, this program strengthens our economy and ensures communities can access essential services, from healthcare to education,” said Attorney General Bonta. “By imposing an unlawful and unnecessary financial burden on public employers, this fee threatens to leave vital positions unfilled, with serious consequences for American patients, students, families, and workers. My office has challenged this fee in court, and we won’t stop fighting to protect California’s workforce and public services.”

The H-1B visa program allows employers to petition for high-skilled foreign workers to temporarily fill positions in specialty occupations that require at least a bachelor’s degree. In petitioning for an H-1B worker, the employer must submit an application, certified by the U.S. Department of Labor, that employment of the H-1B worker will not negatively affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. Congress limits the number of H-1B visas available each year for most private employers, with the current cap set at 65,000, with an exemption of 20,000 for individuals with a master’s degree or higher. Many government and non-profit research organizations are exempt from the 65,000-person cap to ensure that the organizations are fulfilling their public service missions.

Since its inception, the H-1B visa program has been continually tailored by Congress to carry out its purpose of meeting employers’ labor needs, while protecting the interests of American workers to ensure that they are not wrongfully displaced. Congress has repeatedly enhanced enforcement, increased penalties, and legislated on fees for H-1B petitions to prevent misuse of the program. Given its careful structure, the H-1B program has proven to be massively beneficial to the United States. H-1B workers and their dependents contribute $86 billion annually to the economy and pay $35 billion in federal and payroll taxes, on top of $11 billion in state and local taxes.

On September 19, 2025, the Trump Administration imposed an unprecedented $100,000 fee for new H-1B visa petitions, undermining the very purpose of the H-1B visa by making it harder to address severe labor shortages in critical fields such as education and healthcare and ultimately worsening the staffing crisis. As implemented by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, through a series of written documents, the policy affects any application filed after September 21, 2025, and grants the Secretary of Homeland Security broad discretion to determine which petitions are subject to the fee or are exempt from it, raising concerns that the enforcement could be applied selectively against employers disfavored by the Trump Administration.

The $100,000 visa fee is devastating for all states, including California, and threatens the quality of education, healthcare, and other core services available to our residents. For example, the United States faces a nationwide teacher shortage, and in the 2024-2025 school year, 74% of school districts in the U.S. reported having trouble filling open positions, particularly in special education, physical sciences, ESL or bilingual education, and foreign languages. Educators are the third-largest occupation for H-1B visa holders, with nearly 30,000 educators on the visas, and nearly a thousand colleges and universities employ hundreds of H-1B personnel to support their research and education missions. Because K-12 schools, colleges, and universities are generally government or non-profit entities, they are incapable of absorbing an additional $100,000 for each H-1B hire. As a result, international faculty will take their talent, knowledge, and inventions elsewhere, undermining higher education institution’s ability to compete in academia, educate their students, and spearhead research and development. Ultimately, American students will be harmed by larger class sizes, less time with teachers, and cuts to programs and course offerings, compromising the quality of education in California.

Hospitals and other healthcare centers also rely on the H-1B visa program to hire physicians, surgeons, and nurses, often in low-income and working-class neighborhoods. About 11.4 million Californians — roughly one quarter of California’s population — live in areas with primary care shortages. Over the years, nearly 23,000 H-1B physicians worked in underserved communities. The United States is projecting a shortfall of 86,000 physicians by 2036 and 108,000 registered nurses by 2038. There will not be enough doctors to care for older adults, many of whom suffer increased rates of chronic disease and have other complex medical needs. In California, access to specialists and primary care providers in rural areas is already extremely limited and projected to worsen as physicians retire and these communities struggle to attract new doctors. At a time when many hospitals are already facing cuts in health insurance subsidies and reduced Medicaid payments, a $100,000 fee for H-1B healthcare workers is simply not feasible. As a result of the fee, these institutions will be forced to operate with inadequate staffing leading to decreases in the quality of patient care, increased errors, wait times, and mortality rates, and even facility closures. Additionally, a shortage of qualified researchers will force hospitals to eliminate projects aimed at developing new medications and therapies, preventing hospitals from remaining at the forefront of medical innovation that brings life-saving and other necessary treatment.

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

Temporary restraining order remains in effect; Attorney General Bonta urges court to continue blocking funding freeze

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced filing a motion for a preliminary injunction in an effort to continue blocking the Trump Administration from illegally freezing over $10 billion in federal funding for child care and family assistance programs, including an estimated $5 billion to California. Alongside the attorneys general of New York, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota, Attorney General Bonta sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on January 8, 2026 over the funding freeze and its extraordinarily broad requests for data and documents related to the states’ use of the funding, including the personally identifiable information of millions of residents. The attorneys general also sought a temporary restraining order. Less than 24 hours later, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the temporary restraining order, blocking the funding freeze and preventing the broad data and document requests from being enforced. The temporary restraining order remains in effect. In the motion for a preliminary injunction, Attorney General Bonta and his fellow attorneys general urge the court to continue blocking the funding freeze and requests for data and documents because they are unlawful many times over and the states would face irreparable harm without the court’s intervention.

“Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York blocked the Trump Administration from freezing $10 billion in funding for child care and other family assistance programs. We are now asking the court to extend that much-needed protection,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Vulnerable individuals and families would again bear the burden of the Trump Administration’s actions — and as we have consistently in the past, we are continuing to support those individuals and families.” 

The funding at issue benefits millions of Californians — including children, families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities — through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Child Care and Development Fund, and the Social Services Block Grant. According to HHS, the funding freeze was being imposed immediately and exclusively on the five Democratic-led states because of “serious concerns about widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars.” HHS has not provided any evidence at all to support those claims. 

In their motion, the attorneys general argue that:

• The states are likely to prevail on their claims that the Trump Administration’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the Separation of Powers, and the U.S. Constitution’s Appropriations Clause and Spending Clause.
• The states will suffer irreparable harm if the Trump Administration is allowed to move forward with its funding freeze and requests for data and documents.
• Granting the preliminary injunction would serve the public interest.

Celebrates preliminary injunction blocking Trump Administration’s latest illegal action. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today celebrated a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota preliminarily enjoining the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) demand that Minnesota either recertify 100,000 households for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility within 30 days or face draconian financial penalties, and even possible termination from the SNAP program. USDA’s ultimatum is one of many recent efforts by the Trump Administration to use unsubstantiated allusions to and allegations of “fraud” as an excuse to punish Democratic-led states and the residents who call them home. Attorney General Bonta last night joined a coalition of 17 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in support of Minnesota, arguing that USDA's recertification demand violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause, and is inconsistent with the federal-state partnership reflected in the statutes governing SNAP.

“The Trump Administration continues to let his petty, political agenda undermine a vital nutrition assistance program that provides a safety net for millions of Americans,” said Attorney General Bonta. “SNAP helps ensure children across the country do not attend school on empty stomachs, that seniors get the nutrition they need, and that working families have the ability to thrive. The USDA’s demand that Minnesota re-certify 100,000 households in only 30 days disregards decades of established procedures and timelines, without warning or good reason. It’s also impossible to fulfill, as the Trump Administration well knows. The Trump Administration needs to stop putting politics ahead of people and punishing states for serving their residents.  I’m glad to see a court, once again, put a stop to its nonsense.” 

For more than 60 years, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has been the country’s primary weapon against hunger and an important safety net for low-income Americans, providing monthly food benefits to eligible households. In 2024 alone, SNAP helped more than 41 million people avoid food insecurity. More than 62% of SNAP participants are members of households with children, and more than 37% are members of households with seniors or disabled individuals. Since SNAP’s inception, the federal government and state agencies have worked together to build a robust process for ensuring that only eligible individuals receive benefits. In fact, the USDA itself has described SNAP as having “one of the most rigorous quality control systems in the federal government.”

The Trump Administration’s demand that Minnesota recertify 100,000 households during a single 30-day period is impossible to meet. Typically, states recertify SNAP recipients on a rolling basis as households come up for recertification throughout the year, which makes the task manageable. Large and small states alike are not equipped to carry out the enormous and unprecedented task of conducting in-person interviews and recertifying huge numbers of households all at once. If USDA imposed similar demands on other states, they would need to devote an enormous amount of resources to SNAP recertifications, diverting attention from new SNAP applications and putting other strains on social service programs. Mass recertification on a compressed timeline would also inevitably result in more mistakes being made, possibly causing some households to erroneously lose their SNAP benefits or see their benefit allotments reduced. Upending the existing recertification process and forcing recipients to recertify ahead of schedule without warning or good reason would also undermine public trust that state agencies have built up over time, and ultimately lead to fewer eligible households enrolling in SNAP and other social service programs.  

In the amicus brief, the coalition argues that the recertification demand is unlawful and undermines the federal-state partnership by: 

• Upending the existing recertification system by forcing recertifications of all households in four of Minnesota’s largest counties by January 15, 2026. 
• Forcing a state to take part in a “pilot project” against its will or lose statutorily mandated federal funding. 
• Using unsupported allegations of widespread “fraud” in federal benefits programs to justify dramatic program cuts and penalties against Democratic-led states. 

Attorney General Bonta has vigorously defended SNAP recipients from attacks by the Trump Administration. In July 2025, Attorney General Bonta sued USDA for demanding that states turn over personal and sensitive information of millions SNAP recipients. He subsequently secured a preliminary injunction blocking the unlawful data grab, and more recently, filed a motion to enforce the court’s order and reject the Trump Administration’s renewed demand for the data.

During the recent government shutdown, Attorney General Bonta sued USDA again, this time to force it to fund November SNAP benefits. Not one, but two federal district courts determined that the Trump Administration acted unlawfully by suspending SNAP benefits for the first time ever. And when the Administration responded by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to pause one court’s order requiring USDA to pay full benefits, Attorney General Bonta vigorously challenged that request, which was ultimately withdrawn after the government reopened. The SNAP program is now fully funded through September 2026. 

That same month, Attorney General Bonta sued USDA a third time over guidance that erroneously excluded certain lawfully residing non-citizens from SNAP eligibility. In response to that lawsuit, USDA backed down and issued correcting guidance, and a district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring that the agency adhere to its own regulations that provide for a 120-day “hold harmless” period.

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Nevada, New York, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

Pending court approval, case will be fully and permanently resolved in California’s favor

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement after the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss its appeal of the final judgment permanently blocking the Trump Administration’s effort to unlawfully impose immigration enforcement requirements on billions of dollars in annual U.S. Department of Transportation grants. By dropping its appeal, the Trump Administration concedes the case, fully resolving it in favor of California and the 21 other states that sued the Administration.  

“The Trump Administration attempted to use vital transportation dollars as a bargaining chip for its political agenda,” said Attorney General Bonta. “That is why my fellow attorneys general and I stepped in to stop these illegal actions – winning a permanent injunction in the lower court. I am pleased that the Trump Administration has accepted defeat and agreed to drop its appeal of this decision. California is not playing games when it comes to vital transportation dollars that support our public infrastructure, and we will continue taking the President to court each time he weaponizes federal funding to bully our communities.”  

California receives billions in grant funding from the Department of Transportation to build and maintain vital travel infrastructure like the roads, highways, airways, and bridges that connect communities and carry Californians to their workplaces and homes. This includes funding necessary to prevent fatal traffic accidents and stop drunk drivers, to provide transit for seniors and those with disabilities, and that protects and restores roads after environmental disasters like fires or flooding. Neither the purpose of these grants, nor their grant criteria, are in any way connected to immigration enforcement.  

The Constitution is clear: Congress, not the President, decides how federal money is spent. And for decades, Congress has passed laws guaranteeing funding to states like California to improve their roads and protect those who use them — funds that the federal government generally has by virtue of the taxes paid to it by states like California. Yet despite the constraints imposed by Congress and the Constitution, the Trump Administration attempted to seize Congress’s power of the purse by imposing unlawful conditions on transportation grants. In doing so, the Trump Administration violated two key principles that underlie the American system of checks and balances: agencies in the Executive Branch cannot act contrary to the authority conferred on them by Congress, and the federal government cannot use the spending power to coerce states into adopting its preferred policies.

On November 4, 2025, the district court issued final judgment in favor of California and the states that challenged this unlawful conduct, issuing an order permanently enjoining the Trump Administration from unlawfully imposing the conditions and vacating the conditions across all U.S. Department of Transportation grants. In issuing its decision, the Court found that the Trump Administration has “blatantly overstepped their statutory authority, violated the APA, and transgressed well-settled constitutional limitations on federal funding conditions. The Constitutions demands the Court set aside this lawless behavior.” 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously affirmed a lower court’s decision, which permanently barred the Trump Administration from decimating funds that support cutting-edge medical and public health research at universities and research institutions across the country — including at the University of California (UC) and at the California State University (CSU). The funds at issue — known as “indirect cost” reimbursements — cover expenses to facilitate biomedical research, such as lab, faculty, infrastructure, and utility costs. As part of a coalition of 22 attorneys general, Attorney General Bonta sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on February 10, 2025 to block the attempted funding cuts from taking effect.

“The Trump Administration wanted to eviscerate funding for medical research that helps develop new cures and treatments for diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s. Let that sink in: Life-saving research — proudly happening at UCs and CSUs across our state — was under attack,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I stepped in to stop these illegal actions. The district court sided with us, and now, the First Circuit has, too. We’re starting the new year by building on our previous successes and securing yet another important victory against the Trump Administration.”

On Friday, February 7, 2025, the NIH announced in Supplemental Guidance that it would abruptly slash indirect cost rates to an across-the-board 15% rate, which is significantly less than the cost required to perform critical medical research. The NIH purported to make this cut effective the very next business day, Monday, February 10, giving universities and institutions no time to plan for the enormous budget gaps they would be facing. Less than six hours after Attorney General Bonta filed suit against the Trump Administration on February 10, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order against NIH, barring its attempts to cut the critical research funding. The court subsequently issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, which was converted into a permanent injunction at the parties’ request. The Trump Administration appealed that ruling to the First Circuit. 

In today’s decision, the First Circuit wrote that “the public-health benefits of NIH-funded research are enormous” and concluded that:

• “[T]he district court properly exercised subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims,” and
• “NIH’s attempt, through its Supplemental Guidance, to impose a 15% indirect cost reimbursement rate violates the congressionally enacted appropriations rider and HHS’s duly adopted regulations.”