Federal Accountability

Court order continues blocking termination of federal funds appropriated by Congress

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released a statement in response to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction that continues blocking the unlawful termination of $11 billion in critical public health funding by the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Among its findings, the court concluded that the federal government had “clearly usurped Congress’s authority to spend and allocate funds.” The preliminary injunction is in effect with respect to the plaintiff states and the District of Columbia until further order by the court. 

“Left unchallenged, California alone would lose more than $972 million from these illegal cancellations by HHS. We will not allow that to happen,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We are pleased that, after granting our motion for a temporary restraining order last month, the court has now issued a preliminary injunction that ensures this critical federal funding can continue flowing to our state and local public health agencies while our litigation proceeds. Critically, the court also noted that we are likely to succeed on the merits of our claims.” 

On April 1, Attorney General Bonta announced co-leading a coalition of 23 states and the District of Columbia in filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s HHS and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. over the unlawful termination of public health funding. Beginning on March 24, 2025, HHS abruptly, with no advance notice or warning, issued termination notices to state and local public health agencies across the country, purporting to end federal funding for grants that provide essential support for a wide range of urgent public health needs, including identifying, tracking, and addressing infectious diseases; ensuring access to immunizations; and modernizing critical public health infrastructure. 

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, the lawsuit alleges that the termination notices are unlawful in several ways under the Administrative Procedure Act. The federal funding was appropriated by Congress to ensure the United States is better prepared for future public health threats. According to the Trump Administration, funding for the grants is “no longer necessary” because the grants were appropriated through one or more COVID-19 related laws, and the COVID-19 pandemic is over. The coalition secured the temporary restraining order on April 3.

A copy of the court’s order can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 18 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump in support of a challenge to the Trump Administration’s executive orders targeting programs that incorporate equity, inclusion, diversity, and accessibility (Anti-DEI EOs). In their brief, the attorneys general urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to uphold the district court’s decision granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.  

“In California we recognize the importance of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, especially when it comes to ensuring that all Californians have an equal opportunity to thrive and feel empowered to contribute to society,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration’s attempt to remove programs and policies that combat discrimination and promote economic and social benefits is frankly un-American. Programs and practices that incorporate diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility are critical to states, as they not only drive innovation and economic growth, but also provide essential benefits to ensure a safe and welcoming environment for all.”

In January 2025, President Trump issued two Executive Orders targeting “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) and “equity-related grants or contracts.” While the Anti-DEIA EOs 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 antidiscrimination 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 U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland later issued a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claims that the challenged provisions were unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment and infringed on the plaintiffs’ freedom of expression in violation of the First Amendment.

In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to affirm the district court’s decision granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that:

• DEIA principles and practices are grounded in longstanding antidiscrimination laws and provide important benefits to states, their residents, and their businesses.
• The vague and unclear directives set forth in the challenged provisions harm states, which have begun to receive notices from federal agencies that threaten billions of dollars in federal funding for essential services like basic K-12 education, highway infrastructure, public health, workforce development, and environmental protections.
• The challenged provisions create a chilling effect on private entities, which must decide whether, in the face of these vague terms and threats, to continue to provide essential services upon which states’ residents rely.
• Abandonment of these programs will cause immeasurable harm to states and their residents, who rely on practices and programs that advance and support diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility to combat discrimination and to secure extensive economic, social, and educational benefits.

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 following states: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

A copy of the brief can be found here.

Files brief in support of states rocked by tariffs across the country 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today filed an amicus brief in Oregon v. Trump, a case challenging President Trump’s illegal imposition of so called “emergency” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Last month, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to levy tariffs via over a dozen executive orders under the IEEPA. In the brief filed today in the Court of International Trade, Attorney General Bonta argued that the Trump Administration’s interpretation of its authority under IEEPA is incorrect — the Act’s language does not provide the authority impose tariffs. 

“President Trump’s illegal tariffs impact businesses, consumers, and states across the nation and it is our responsibility as state leaders to advocate and defend our people against harmful — and illegal — actions,” said Attorney General Bonta. “It’s simple, the statute that the President is using to impose his chaotic tariffs clearly does not include the authority to do so, any reading of it as such is wild, nonsensical, and irresponsible.”  

BACKGROUND

In the past few months, President Trump has issued over a dozen executive orders imposing, pausing, reimposing, and escalating tariffs on every U.S. trading partner, and claimed authority to do so under IEEPA. New tariffs are chaotically contemplated, announced, or delayed nearly every day. The uncertainty surrounding the tariffs is itself causing immediate harm to California by incapacitating its ability to budget and plan for the future and chilling the economy — as businesses and people pause decision-making and lose out on opportunities. 

While difficult to calculate due to their frenzied nature, most estimates put the new average tariff rate at or above 25%. The current IEEPA tariff regime imposes a universal tariff of 10% on all U.S. trading partners, with tariff increases as high 50% on more than 50 specific trading partners set to go into effect on July 9, 2025. 

Separately, Canada and Mexico are subject to IEEPA tariffs of up to 25%, which are currently in effect after being paused and then re-started. China is subject to an ever-changing combination of IEEPA tariffs that reached a staggering rate of 145%, and as of the publication of this press release, plummeted down to 30% under the 90-day pause. The claimed rationales for each of these tariffs is wide-ranging and difficult to follow from trade deficits and foreign trade practices to immigration, crime, and illicit drugs. In response to President Trump’s tariffs, major U.S. trading partners including China, Canada, and the European Union have imposed or announced retaliatory tariffs — China’s retaliatory tariffs alone reached 125%.

The impact of President Trump’s unprecedented IEEPA tariffs is devastating and unprecedented. The near-daily threats to impose new tariffs have already inflicted and continue to inflict serious financial harms on California and states across the nation — with the largest burden expected to fall on the poorest Americans, who cannot absorb the loss of wages or the greater cost of goods. 

President Trump’s tariff regime will:

• Reduce Americans’ incomes and productivity: Tariffs are expected to reduce the labor supply by 546,000 full-time jobs. 
• Cause higher prices and less availability of goods, leading to goods shortages and supply chain disruptions: The Port of Los Angeles saw a third of import volume disappear as of the first week of May, which will hit the availability of goods in stores in only a few weeks. 
• Wreak havoc on our financial systems: The U.S. stock market suffered the largest two-day loss in its history in the two days following the announcement of President Trump’s most sweeping tariffs. 
• Generate enormous economic damage to both the U.S. economy and the California economy: Tariffs, on net, reduce production, income, and efficiency. 
• Raise the probability of a recession: Recessions are damaging to public finance and state budgets — budget pressures can also mean cessation of spending in areas of pressing need, such as public safety, education, and disaster preparedness.

A copy of the brief is available here.  

Economic chaos, higher prices, lower wages, empty shelves — California is bracing for impact

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today filed a motion for preliminary injunction with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to stop the Trump Administration’s illegal tariffs while litigation in their case proceeds. On April 16, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs and direct agencies within the administration to implement and enforce those tariffs without the consent of Congress. President Trump’s illegal and erratic tariffs are wreaking havoc on the U.S. financial system and causing uniquely immense harm to California’s economy — a major driver of our national economy. The tariffs challenged under California’s current lawsuit are projected to cost California consumers $25 billion dollars and result in the loss of over 64,000 jobs. The totality of the Trump Administration's tariff regime is expected to cost households approximately $40 billion. 

In addition to the motion for a preliminary injunction, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom also filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Oregon v. Trump, a case challenging President Trump’s illegal imposition of so called “emergency” tariffs. 

“Last fall, Americans at the voting booth demanded lower prices. Now, Trump’s chaotic tariff war is threatening to skyrocket the cost of living for families, lower wages, slash jobs, and throw business owners and innovators into a spiral of uncertainty,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Let me be clear, uncertainly and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California. California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”

“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”  

“As tariffs continue to drive up costs and disrupt supply chains, it’s our local small businesses — especially those owned by Latino entrepreneurs — that are being hit the hardest. At the Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, we’re doubling down on our efforts to support these businesses through tailored resources, technical assistance, and advocacy. From helping members navigate cost increases to connecting them with local and state programs, we’re ensuring they don’t face this economic uncertainty alone,” said Cathy Rodriguez-Aguirre, President & CEO of Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. “We appreciate Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta for stepping in with bold leadership. Local chambers are proud to be on the frontlines, offering stability, solutions, and a strong voice for the small business community during this challenging time.” 

“After 38 years in business, our very survival is at stake. We’re proud to have always manufactured in America, but our ability to be cost competitive has been threatened, and of course, that puts our jobs at risk,” said Robert Farnsworth, President & CEO of Sonnet Technologies. “We need a predictable supply chain with fair prices, and we can’t get that now.” 

“American families and businesses are already grappling with high costs, and tariffs will only make matters worse," said Maria S. Salinas, President & CEO of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. "We urge policymakers to reconsider, seek alternatives and reverse course.” 

CALIFORNIA IMPACTS 

As the largest economy in the nation — and the fourth largest in the world — President Trump’s illegal tariffs are having a profound impact on California’s budget and how the state can meet the needs of its residents.  

As the country’s largest importer and second largest exporter, California is also more trade-dependent than many states — ports account for much of the country’s import needs, livelihoods, and California relies on these ports for supplies. Many agencies, including the California Department of Public Health, contract with vendors to purchase critical goods which were manufactured outside the United States, including over $8 billion in pharmaceuticals, $300 million in diabetes related supplies, $3 million in pediatric and adult flu vaccines, $700,000 in disease testing kits, among other critical goods. Due to the President’s tariffs California is now facing an impossible choice: accept price increases, no matter how high, resulting in economic harm — or cancel contracts, resulting in economic harm and/or leaving Californians without essential goods.  

Additionally, California is expected to lose a staggering $7.8 billion in tax revenue from personal income tax and corporate revenue as a result of the tariffs’ impact on California taxpayers. This extraordinary loss of essential revenue is exacerbated by the unpredictable and chaotic approach to imposing tariffs which has made it extremely difficult for California and its agencies to effectively budget, plan for the future, and properly serve Californians.

The harms from the current tariffs and their uncertain nature are reflected in California’s recently downgraded economic projection for the 2025-2026 Governor’s Budget. Specifically, this forecast projected increased unemployment and near-term inflation and considerably downgraded projected wage and salary growth, as well as job and personal income growth. These fiscal impacts from tariffs have immediate and devastating effects on the California’s budget, which in turn will yield deep cuts to the state’s programs and services. 

BACKGROUND

In the past few months, President Trump has issued over a dozen executive orders imposing, pausing, reimposing, and escalating tariffs on every U.S. trading partner, and claimed authority to do so under IEEPA.  New tariffs are chaotically contemplated, announced, or delayed nearly every day. The uncertainty surrounding the tariffs is itself causing immediate harm to California by incapacitating its ability to budget and plan for the future and chilling the economy — as businesses and people pause decision-making and lose out on opportunities. 

While difficult to calculate due to their frenzied nature, most estimates put the new average tariff rate at or above 25%. The current IEEPA tariff regime imposes a universal tariff of 10% on all U.S. trading partners, with tariff increases as high 50% on more than 50 specific trading partners set to go into effect on July 9, 2025.  

Separately, Canada and Mexico are subject to IEEPA tariffs of up to 25%, which are currently in effect after being paused and then re-started. China is subject to an ever-changing combination of IEEPA tariffs that reached a staggering rate of 145%, and as of the publication of this press release, plummeted down to 30% under the 90-day pause. The claimed rationales for each of these tariffs is wide-ranging and difficult to follow from trade deficits and foreign trade practices to immigration, crime, and illicit drugs. In response to President Trump’s tariffs, major U.S. trading partners including China, Canada, and the European Union have imposed or announced retaliatory tariffs — China’s retaliatory tariffs alone reached 125%.

NATIONWIDE IMPACTS

The impact of President Trump’s unprecedented IEEPA tariffs is devastating and unprecedented. The near-daily threats to impose new tariffs have already inflicted and continue to inflict serious financial harms on California and states across the nation — with the largest burden expected to fall on the poorest Americans, who cannot absorb the loss of wages or the greater cost of goods. 

President Trump’s tariff regime will:

• Reduce Americans’ incomes and productivity: Tariffs are expected to reduce the labor supply by 546,000 full-time jobs. 
• Cause higher prices and less availability of goods, leading to goods shortages and supply chain disruptions: The Port of Los Angeles saw a third of import volume disappear as of the first week of May, which will hit the availability of goods in stores in only a few weeks. 
• Wreak havoc on our financial systems: The U.S. stock market suffered the largest two-day loss in its history in the two days following the announcement of President Trump’s most sweeping tariffs. 
• Generate enormous economic damage to both the U.S. economy and the California economy: Tariffs, on net, reduce production, income, and efficiency. 
• Raise the probability of a recession: Recessions are damaging to public finance and state budgets — budget pressures can also mean cessation of spending in areas of pressing need, such as public safety, education, and disaster preparedness.

A copy of the filing is available here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in his lawsuit to prevent the Trump Administration from dismantling AmeriCorps. 

AmeriCorps is an independent federal agency tasked with engaging Americans in meaningful community-based service that directly address the country’s educational, public safety, and environmental needs — every year, the agency provides opportunities for more than 200,000 Americans to serve their communities. 

Attorney General Bonta and a multistate coalition are suing the Trump Administration over its termination of AmeriCorps grants and the dismantling of the agency though an 85% reduction of its workforce, effectively ending the agency’s ability to continue administering the programs, operations, and funding that make its important work possible. 

More on the lawsuit is available here. A copy of the motion for a preliminary injunction is available here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a statement in response to a court granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a case challenging the Trump Administration’s mass firing of federal workers across the nation. On Thursday, Attorney General Bonta and a coalition of 21 attorneys general submitted an amicus brief in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Trump, in support of the request for a TRO. The TRO issued yesterday immediately blocks the Trump Administration from illegally firing federal workers throughout the federal government until the court considers a preliminary injunction on May 22, 2025. 

“The Trump Administration is attempting to bring the federal government — and the vital services and programs Americans rely on — to a screeching halt,” said Attorney General Bonta. “A court has ordered President Trump to end his illegal mass firing rampage pending a ruling on a preliminary injunction. This won’t undo the damage already sown, but it does send a clear message: The President does not hold the power to illegally fire anyone he wants — and as of Friday night, he must stop doing so." 

Massive federal layoffs substantially disrupt the ability of the states to protect and serve their residents and pose serious risks and harms to their citizens’ health, safety, and lives by impacting state programs focused on  emergency planning and response, infrastructure repair, environmental protection, and  public health, among many more issues.

Attorney General Bonta has forcefully stood up to the Trump Administration's illegal efforts to dismember and impair the federal government though mass firing. 

This week, Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration challenging the unlawful mass firing of roughly 10,000 full-time U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) employees, the consolidation of 28 HHS divisions into 15 divisions, and the closing of half of HHS’s ten regional offices  — in addition to previously filed lawsuits challenging the illegal firing of probationary federal workers and U.S. Department of Education workers. 

Attorney General Bonta has submitted two amicus briefs (here and here) in lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration's dismantling of the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau — actions that include issuing a suspension of work across the agency and terminating probationary employees. These actions rapidly and substantially increase the burden on state agencies to protect consumers. 

Last month, Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit challenging operational changes to Social Security Administration (SSA) policies. These changes, including staffing cuts, field office closures, and the illegal shuttering of departments, have hampered SSA’s ability to help older adults and persons with disabilities access the benefits and services they depend on.

A copy of the TRO can be found here. 

After filing lawsuit on Monday, Attorney General Bonta now seeks preliminary injunctive relief from certain portions of MAHA Directive

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 19 attorneys general in filing a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). On March 27, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. issued a directive to “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA Directive), which included the firing of roughly 10,000 full-time HHS employees, the consolidation of 28 HHS divisions into 15 divisions, and the closing of half of HHS’s ten regional offices — including one in San Francisco. On May 5, the attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration challenging over the MAHA Directive. In today’s motion, they argue that they have satisfied each of the elements for issuance of a preliminary injunction and seek intervention from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to prevent the imminent, irreparable damage resulting from certain portions of the MAHA Directive.

“Absent intervention from the court, our States will suffer irreparable harm. As a result, we’re filing a motion for a preliminary injunction and requesting expedited relief,” said Attorney General Bonta. “With HHS under attack by the Trump Administration, my fellow attorneys general and I are continuing to answer the public’s call to protect this critical Department.”

The States argue that the entire MAHA Directive is arbitrary and capricious, and specifically move for a preliminary injunction setting aside the MAHA Directive as to: (1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; (2) the Center for Tobacco Products (located within the Food & Drug Administration); (3) the Office of Head Start within the Administration for Children and Families; and (4) the Division of Data and Technical Analysis (located within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation), which is responsible for calculating the federal poverty guidelines.

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, congressional mandates, and the Constitution. 
• The States have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm in the form of lost funding, information, guidance and support for their complementary State programs — in particular if the formal staff terminations, which were sent on April 1, are allowed to proceed on June 2.
• The public health and social consequences of these actions overwhelmingly militate in favor of preliminary injunctive relief.  

In filing today’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the motion can be found here.

Urges court to keep order that will protect the agency from further dismemberment 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced joining a coalition of 23 attorneys general in submitting an amicus brief in National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). In February, Attorney General Bonta submitted an initial amicus brief in this case, which was followed by the court granting a robust preliminary injunction, a decision that prevents the Trump Administration from moving forward with mass layoffs while litigation in this case proceeds. The Trump Administration has now appealed the preliminary injunction, asking the court to strike it down to allow further dismantling of the CFPB to continue. In today’s amicus brief, the attorneys general argue that shuttering the CFPB would cause catastrophic harm to consumer protections nationwide. These actions by the Trump Administration trample over the decision of Congress to create the agency, violating the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution. 

“Further demolishing the CFPB, the top cop protecting Americans from exploitation, would put families nationwide at a stark disadvantage when standing up to big businesses who aren’t playing by the rules,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I urge the court to keep in place the order preventing the Trump Administration from issuing mass layoffs at the CFPB — its loss would have devastating and deep implications for California, and the financial well-being of households across the nation."

In the brief, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the attorneys general argue the dismantling of the CFPB will cause irreparable harm to consumers and the states’ own consumer protection enforcement efforts, leave no oversight over large national banks, and will rapidly and substantially increase the burden on state agencies to protect consumers from conduct regulated by the CFPB. The loss of the CFPB’s partnership has concrete and widespread implications: from the sharing of complaints and trend data, to providing training, to partnering on joint investigations and litigations, the CFPB has been a force multiplier for California’s consumer protection efforts.

Background
 
After examining the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis, Congress concluded the crisis resulted in part from the failure of federal banking and other regulators to address significant consumer protection issues detrimental to both consumers and the safety and soundness of the banking system. In direct response to these events, Congress established the CFPB and tasked it with enforcing numerous federal consumer protection statutes and enacting regulations to further these efforts. For over a decade, the CFPB has served as an invaluable partner to state attorneys general and state banking regulators, both by working to protect consumers against fraudulent and abusive practices and by advancing a fair and level playing field in consumer financial markets by issuing regulations under federal law. 
 
In the last months, the Trump Administration has taken a series of actions intended to debilitate the CFPB, including issuing a suspension of work across the agency, terminating probationary employees, and announcing a decision not to draw additional funding from the Federal Reserve. These actions appear to be part of a unilateral effort to permanently shut down the agency, including programs and operations mandated by federal law. Most recently, the Trump Administration issued reduction in force notices to 90% of the CFPB’s workforce — a move that was swiftly blocked by the courts.

Attorney General Bonta has been a vocal supporter of CFPB. In February, Attorney General Bonta submitted an amicus brief in another case, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 
 
In filing the brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New York, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

A copy of the brief can be found here.  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in submitting an amicus brief in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Trump, in support of the request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the Trump Administration’s illegal mass firings in agencies across the federal government. 

“The illegal ransacking of federal agencies and the mass firing of federal workers that make these agencies run has sown tremendous chaos, instilled distrust among the American people, and caused deep harm to our country,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Beyond the on-the-ground impacts we are seeing, the continued uncertainty surrounding the fate of various federal agencies has a real and lasting impact on states that must devote substantial time and resources to prepare for agencies that may or may not cease to exist. I urge the court to order an immediate end to the Trump Administration’s firing rampage.”

In the brief, the attorneys general argue that the Trump Administration is acting beyond its authority in dismantling agencies across the federal government — the Trump Administration does not have the power to incapacitate a department that Congress created, nor can it decline to spend funds that were appropriated by Congress for that department. 

Massive federal layoffs substantially disrupt the ability of the states to protect and serve their residents and pose serious risks and harms to their citizens’ health, safety, and lives by impacting state programs ranging from emergency planning and response, infrastructure repair, environmental protection, public health, among many more.

The brief includes multiple examples of federal statutes inviting or requiring federal and state collaboration to solve problems, including:

• The United States Geological Survey’s work to identify, assess, and plan for potential landslide hazards; 
• The tsunami hazard mitigation program created by the Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);
• The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) national suicide and mental health hotlines; 
• The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s deployment of a team to address crises such as food-borne pathogens’ threat to human health; and 
• FEMA’s responsibility to develop operational plans and lead infrastructure workers who respond to disasters, establish programs for temporary housing during emergencies, and ensure that federal agencies work in coordination with state and local officials.  

Attorney General Bonta has forcefully stood up to the Trump Administrations illegal efforts to dismember and impair the federal government though mass firing. 

This week, Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration challenging the unlawful mass firing of roughly 10,000 full-time HHS employees, the consolidation of 28 HHS divisions into 15 divisions, and the closing of half of HHS’s ten regional offices  — in addition to previously filed lawsuits challenging the illegal firing of probationary federal workers and U.S. Department of Education workers. 

Attorney General Bonta has submitted two amicus briefs (here and here) in lawsuits challenging the Trump Administrations dismantling of the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau — actions that include issuing a suspension of work across the agency and terminating probationary employees — and rapidly and substantially increases the burden on state agencies to protect consumers. 

Last month, Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit challenging operational changes to Social Security Administration policies. These changes, including staffing cuts, field office closures, and the illegal shuttering of departments, have hampered SSA’s ability to help older adults and persons with disabilities access the benefits and services they depend on. 

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

A copy of the brief can be found here.

20th lawsuit against Trump Administration asks court to block executive order and directive to expedite non-emergency permitting procedures

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 14 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s Executive Order (EO) entitled “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” along with the actions taken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation pursuant to the EO. Although national energy production reached an all-time high under President Biden and has continued growing, President Trump unlawfully invoked authority under the National Emergencies Act to improperly declare a national energy emergency. Congress passed the National Emergencies Act to prevent Presidents from declaring national emergencies for frivolous or partisan matters — exactly what the President has done here.  Based on that declaration, the EO directs federal agencies to exercise their emergency authorities – reserved for disaster prevention and recovery – to facilitate and expedite the development of energy projects. Notably, the directives under the EO would expedite fossil fuel projects but exclude solar and wind power. Attorney General Bonta and the multistate coalition allege that the President’s directive is not only unlawful, but will unnecessarily fast-track non-emergency projects, which the states allege will result in damage to their states’ waters, historic properties, and tribal lands and the people and wildlife that rely on our precious natural resources.  

“Just another unlawful directive from the President, this time acting well beyond the scope of his emergency powers,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The invocation of the country’s emergency authorities is reserved for actual emergencies— not changes in Presidential policy or because the President feels like it. These procedures misuse authorities meant for disaster response and bypass important health and environmental protections for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry. That’s why my fellow attorneys general and I are filing this lawsuit to hold the President accountable for breaking the law, again.” 

On January 20th, his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order, which declared a “national energy emergency” under the National Emergencies Act. Pursuant to this directive, the Corps was instructed to identify projects for accelerated permitting under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Under Section 404 of the CWA, the Corps issues permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into navigable waters nationwide, typically for water resource projects such as dams and levees, infrastructure development such as highways and airports, mining projects, and flood control projects. The Corps subsequently issued “special emergency permit processing procedures” for Corps districts across the country. Other agencies, including the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, have followed suit, issuing emergency procedures and/or guidance to expedite permitting of energy projects. Until now, federal agencies have used emergency procedures during actual emergencies such as hurricanes and catastrophic oil spills — for example, the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Now agencies are acting under emergency procedures only due to the President’s decision to declare a national energy emergency when no such emergency actually exists. 

In the lawsuit, the attorneys general allege that the President’s directive, and federal agencies’ subsequent implementation of it, violate multiple federal laws, including the Administrative Procedure Act. The attorneys general are asking the Court to declare the President’s directive illegal and prevent the Administration from taking any action to pursue emergency permitting for non-emergency projects.

Joining California Attorney General Bonta and Washington Attorney General Brown in filing this lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

A copy of the complaint can be found here.