Federal Accountability

California is suing the Trump Administration to stop the illegal sharing of Medicaid data and to prevent private data from being used for immigration enforcement 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today responded to new reports that the Trump Administration has illegally provided Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with access to the personal, sensitive data of Medicaid recipients. This data sharing agreement, alarmingly, comes more than a week after Attorney General Bonta led a multistate coalition in filing a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to provide unfettered access to individual personal health data to ICE earlier this month. A hearing on their motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for August 7, 2025. 

“I’m deeply disturbed by the Trump Administration’s reckless and unprecedented weaponization of the private, sensitive data of Medicaid recipients,” said Attorney General Bonta. “It is devastating to think that individuals may not seek essential medical care because they are afraid that if they do so, they may be targeted by this Administration. We sued President Trump and his lackeys after we received initial reports of this illegal data sharing earlier this month. Despite this, the Trump Administration appears to have entered into a new illegal data sharing agreement with ICE. We are moving quickly to secure a court order blocking the sharing of this data for immigration enforcement. The President’s efforts to pull personal, private, and unrelated health data to create a mass deportation machine cannot be allowed to continue.” 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 20 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, et al. vs. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., in support of a challenge to the Trump Administration’s abrupt termination of funding for legal services for unaccompanied immigrant children. In their brief, the attorneys general urge the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the preliminary injunction issued by the district court, arguing that the Trump Administration’s termination of federal funding for legal representation undermines the efforts of Amici States’ in ensuring the safety of unaccompanied children.

“As the People’s Attorney I am committed to protecting the safety, wellbeing, and rights of all children – including immigrant children – and ensuring that they have access to legal representation,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration’s attempt to roll back the rights of unaccompanied children not only undermines their safety but also increases the risk of legal complications, educational challenges, and other lasting harms.”

Attorney General Bonta and the multistate coalition have a strong interest in protecting the rights of unaccompanied immigrant children, as many of these children will eventually be released to sponsors in their states. In fiscal year 2024, approximately 10,800 unaccompanied children were released to sponsors in California — 11 percent of all unaccompanied children released to sponsors that year and the second-highest number of released children after Texas. These children become important members of their communities, students in their schools, and eventually, parents of their own families. Forcing these children to spend prolonged time in federal custody will make it more difficult for them to thrive in their communities upon release. A robust body of research shows that prolonged time in immigration custody is particularly harmful for children’s physical and mental health and disrupts their development.

In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the preliminary injunction issued by the district court, arguing that:

• Federal law recognizes the importance of providing legal representation to unaccompanied children in immigration proceedings.

• The termination of federal funding for legal representation for unaccompanied children will significantly increase the gaps in funding for legal services and legal service providers resulting in funding and staffing shortfalls.

• Unaccompanied children will experience various long-lasting harms without access to the multidisciplinary support and advocacy that legal representation provides.

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

A copy of the brief can be found here.

By the Trump Administration's own estimates, the rule will cause up to 1.8 million people to lose their health insurance

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led with the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New Jersey, a multistate coalition in filing a lawsuit challenging an unlawful final rule promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that would create significant barriers to obtaining healthcare under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Trump Administration’s final rule would make numerous amendments to rules governing federal and state health insurance marketplaces which the administration estimates will cause up to 1.8 million people to lose their health insurance, while causing millions more to pay increased insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs like copays and deductibles. The final rule also excludes coverage of gender-affirming care as an essential health benefit (EHB) under the ACA. In the lawsuit, the attorneys general argue that the HHS and CMS rule is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The coalition is also seeking preliminary relief, and a stay, to prevent the challenged portions of the final rule from taking effect in the Plaintiff States before the August 25 effective date.

“Far from delivering on their promises to drive down costs and ‘make America healthier’ the Trump Administration’s HHS and CMS are doing their best to make it harder and more expensive for Americans to obtain health insurance and access care,” said Attorney General Bonta. “These sweeping changes would impose onerous verification requirements, junk health insurance premiums for some consumers, shorten enrollment periods in federal and state healthcare exchanges like Covered California, deprive up to 1.8 million Americans of health insurance, drive up out-of-pocket healthcare costs and so much more. It’s unlawful and it’s wrong – we’re meeting the Trump Administration in court to defend Americans’ healthcare coverage.”

Congress enacted the ACA in 2010 to increase the number of Americans with health insurance and decrease the cost of healthcare. Fifteen years later, the Act continues to meet its goals, with annual enrollment on the ACA marketplace doubling over the past five years, resulting in over 24 million people signing up for health insurance coverage in plan year 2025 on the ACA exchanges and receiving subsidies to make such coverage affordable, including millions of people in the Plaintiff States. Now, with less than four months until open enrollment for plan year 2026 begins, the Trump Administration’s final rule would abruptly reverse that trend, erecting a series of new barriers to enrollment that will deprive up to 1.8 million people of insurance coverage by the Administration’s own estimates, and significantly drive up the costs incurred by Plaintiff States in providing healthcare, including increasing state expenditures on Medicaid, uncompensated emergency care, and funding other services provided to newly uninsured residents.

California has approximately two million ACA plan enrollees, the third highest of any state. The final rule by HHS would make substantial changes to the operation of the ACA marketplaces, including adding new bureaucratic barriers, imposing an automatic monthly charge on all automatically reenrolled consumers who qualify for $0 premiums, shortening the open enrollment period for signing up for health coverage, and making other changes which will make coverage less affordable for millions of individuals nationwide. The final rule would also exclude gender-affirming care as an EHB on federal exchange plans, leaving states responsible for paying for the portion of insurance premiums attributable to any such coverage (but the availability of such care in California would not be impacted).  

In the lawsuit, the attorneys general argue that the HHS and CMS rule is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious, and would cause significant harm to states and their residents. All of the challenged marketplace changes implemented by the final rule will be harmful to individual consumers and state and local governments. The final rule imposes burdensome and costly paperwork requirements, limits the opportunities to sign up for health coverage, substantially increases cost-sharing limits, and forces exchanges and consumers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to prove eligibility for coverage and subsidies. These changes will result in direct and immediate costs to States as well as harms tied to decreased enrollment.

In filing the lawsuit, California Attorney General Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Campbell, and New Jersey Attorney General Platkin are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. 

A copy of the complaint is available here.

Over a billion in funding potentially at stake for California projects to address flooding, wildfires, landslides, drought, and earthquakes

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit challenging the unlawful termination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program. Since 2020, FEMA has made billions of dollars available under the BRIC program to prepare for and mitigate the risks from disasters before they happen. From flooding to wildfires to landslides to earthquakes, California is uniquely at risk from natural disasters and the largest beneficiary of this program; already, it has been awarded tens of millions of dollars, and if the program continues, could receive over a billion more for projects that FEMA had selected for grant funding. In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta, alongside a coalition of 19 other states, asks the court to compel FEMA to reverse the unlawful termination of the BRIC program so that communities across the country can protect themselves from natural disasters before they strike.  

“Nearly thirty years ago, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress recognized a simple fact: Preparing for disasters, instead of just reacting to them, saves money and lives,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Yet in the name of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, President Trump and his lackeys have once again jeopardized public safety with their indiscriminate slashing of pre-disaster mitigation funding. We’re taking them to court – not because we want to, but because we have to. As we continue to build a climate resilient California, we deserve a federal government that is a partner, not a roadblock in our efforts – and that’s exactly what Congress intended.” 

Across five Presidential administrations, Congress and FEMA have worked together to provide funding through FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation program so that communities across the nation can invest in projects that reduce harm from natural disasters. The rationale is simple: by proactively fortifying our communities against disasters before they strike, rather than just responding afterward, we will reduce injuries, save lives, protect property, and, ultimately, save money that would otherwise be spent on post-disaster costs. 

Given the program’s effectiveness in protecting both people and pocketbooks, it is little surprise that it has had broad bipartisan support. The bill codifying the program passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 415–2 and passed the Senate by unanimous consent before President Bill Clinton signed it. More recently, during President Trump’s first term, a bipartisan group of legislators overwhelmingly passed a bill by a vote of 398–23 in the House and 93–6 in the Senate that provided the program with an additional funding stream. And in 2021, Congress invested another $1 billion in the program through the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

In California, projects that have been awarded funding include: 

• A project in City of Rancho Palos Verdes to reduce geologic landslide movement that threatens most of the City’s residents and infrastructure, including a major arterial roadway that provides community and emergency access, sanitation sewer lines located along this roadway, electric and communication lines, potable water lines, and gas lines. Without this project, landslide movement will continue to threaten critical infrastructure, damage homes and property, and endanger lives. 
• A project in the City of Sacramento to mitigate flooding of five major interchanges, 3.9 miles of a major interstate highway, a runway at an airport, surface streets, 27,000 housing units, and more. Among other things, the project would have improved floodwall sections, improved levee sections, and relocated a pump station. 
• A project in Kern County to seismically retrofit the Kern Valley Healthcare District’s hospital that provides acute care and emergency medical services to a remote population in the mid-northern region of the Kern River Valley area. Unless seismically retrofitted, the hospital may soon need to close. This would force hundreds of thousands of Californians to seek services at hospitals over two hours away. 

In Texas, where heavy rains turned into devastating floods earlier this month, FEMA was set to provide hundreds of millions in federal funding for pre-disaster mitigation projects, including for several flood mitigation projects.

All that changed when Cameron Hamilton, who the Trump Administration unlawfully installed to act as FEMA’s Administrator, suddenly shut down the program. His unilateral decision to shutter the nation’s largest, most popular, and most cost-effective pre-disaster mitigation program is illegal. Neither Cameron Hamilton nor his successor, David Richardson, were lawfully appointed or qualified to run FEMA, as required by the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and statutory requirements. Their purported termination of the BRIC program flatly contravenes Congress’s decision to continue to fund it, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Congress’s power of the purse. In their lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Attorney General Bonta and a coalition urge the court to reverse FEMA’s unlawful decision to shut down this program – before the devastating impact of this loss of funding results in permanent damage to our communities.  

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the state of Pennsylvania, in filing the lawsuit.  

A copy of the lawsuit will be available here. 

In California, over $900 million in federal education funding is frozen, jeopardizing key programs for after school and summer learning, teacher preparation, and to support students learning English

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today sued the Trump Administration over its unconstitutional, unlawful, and arbitrary decision to freeze funding for six longstanding programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education just weeks before the school year in many parts of California is set to start. In California, an estimated $939 million in federal education funding is frozen. Without this funding, many educational programs will shutter – already, ongoing summer learning programs have been left unfunded. In filing today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta co-leads a coalition of 23 attorneys general and two states together with the attorneys general of Colorado, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. The attorneys general argue that the funding freeze violates federal funding statutes and regulations authorizing these critical programs and appropriating funds for them, violates federal statutes governing the federal budgeting process, including the Antideficiency Act and Impoundment Control Act, and violates the constitutional separation of powers doctrine and the Presentment Clause. They ask the court for declaratory and injunctive relief.

“With no rhyme or reason, the Trump Administration abruptly froze billions of dollars in education funding just weeks before the start of the school year,” said Attorney General Bonta. “In doing so, it has threatened the existence of programs that provide critical after school and summer learning opportunities, that teach English to students, and that provide educational technology to our classrooms. Taken together with his other attacks on education, President Trump seems comfortable risking the academic success of a generation to further his own misguided political agenda. But as with so many of his other actions, this funding freeze is blatantly illegal, and we’re confident the court will agree.”

For decades, California and other states have used funding under these programs to carry out a broad range of programs and services, including educational programs for migrant children and English learners; programs that promote effective classroom instruction, improve school conditions and the use of technology in the classroom; community learning centers that offer students a broad range of opportunities for academic and extracurricular enrichment; and adult education and workforce development efforts.

Pursuant to federal statutory and regulatory requirements, each year the Department of Education makes around 25% of the funds for these programs available to states on or about July 1 in order to permit state and local educational agencies to plan their budgets for the academic year ahead. The plaintiff states have complied with the funding conditions set forth under the law and have state plans that the Department of Education has already approved. And the plaintiff states have received these funds, without incident, for decades, including as recently as last year. However, this year, on June 30, state agencies across the country received a notification announcing that the Department of Education would not be “obligating funds for” six formula funding programs on July 1.

This funding freeze has immediately thrown into chaos plans for the upcoming academic year. Local education agencies have approved budgets, developed staffing plans, and signed contracts to provide vital educational services under these grants. Now, as a result of the Trump Administration’s actions, states find themselves without sufficient funding for these commitments, just weeks before the start of the 2025-2026 school year. Essential summer school and afterschool programs, which provide childcare to working parents of school age children, are already being impacted. The abrupt freeze is also wreaking havoc on key teacher training programs as well as programs that make school more accessible to children with special learning needs, such as English learners.

But it is Congress, not the Executive Branch, that possesses the power of the purse. The Constitution does not afford the Executive Branch power to unilaterally refuse to spend appropriations that were passed by both houses of Congress and were signed into law. Yet that is exactly what the Trump Administration is attempting to do here. In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and a coalition argue that the Trump Administration’s actions violate federal funding statutes and Appropriations Act, Apportionment, the Administrative Procedures Act and U.S. Constitution, including the separation of powers doctrine, equitable ultra vires, and the Presentment Clause. They asked the Court to declare the funding freeze unlawful – as courts have repeatedly done in other multistate cases – and block any attempts to withhold or delay this funding.

Attorney General Bonta co-leads the coalition together with the attorneys general of Colorado, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. He is also joined in filing the lawsuit by the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Washinton, and Wisconsin, as well as the states of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

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

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today celebrated a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granting a temporary restraining order blocking U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from engaging in unconstitutional and unlawful stops of Los Angeles residents during immigration sweeps. 

“The Trump Administration is using federal immigration agents as a tool to instill fear and division in Los Angeles communities. In doing so, it is damaging community trust with law enforcement, disrupting Angelenos’ daily lives, and impeding public safety,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The troubling use of masks, unmarked vehicles, and plainclothes to cover up immigration agents’ identities – and their own refusal to identify themselves when asked – has made it difficult to distinguish these agents from criminals. Their sweeping stops of Angelenos, based not on any evidence of wrongdoing but instead on racial profiling, is flagrantly unconstitutional. Los Angeles cannot be expected to live like this, with many residents afraid to leave their homes and their civil rights under fire. Today, a court agreed, ordering immigration agents to end their unconstitutional stops in the Los Angeles area. As California Attorney General, I will continue to fight to hold this President and his administration accountable to the law and to protect and defend California communities and their civil rights.”

Attorney General Bonta led a multistate coalition in filing an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in Vasquez Perdomo et al. v Noem et al. last week. Attorney General Bonta has also sued the Trump Administration over the President’s illegal order to federalize the California National Guard and redirect hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles. 

A copy of the court’s decision is available here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a multistate coalition in submitting an amicus brief in Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Bondi, supporting plaintiffs challenging conditions placed on Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grants by the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ). In their brief, the attorneys general argue that the federal government is illegally adding new rules to domestic violence and sexual assault grants that go against the Constitution and threaten vital services for victims.

“Violence Against Women Act grants provide a critical safety net for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault across California,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration’s politically driven restrictions on accessing these grants are not only unlawful, but they also put lives at risk. Survivors deserve support free from discrimination and interference, not confusing mandates that jeopardize their access to help when they need it most.” 

VAWA grants help provide safe shelters, counseling, legal aid, and other critical support, aiming to serve all eligible victims, regardless of their background. However, U.S. DOJ is now attempting to add confusing new rules to these grants, telling organizations they cannot use funds to "promote gender identity" or "DEI programs," even while maintaining that organizations must continue to serve all victims and follow anti-discrimination laws. This puts the groups that help victims and survivors in an impossible bind and potentially leaves countless victims without the help they desperately need.

The plaintiffs, a coalition of domestic violence and sexual assault service providers, argue that these conditions exceed U.S. DOJ’s statutory authority, are arbitrary and capricious, and violate constitutional rights, including the First and Fifth Amendments and the Spending Clause.

In today’s amicus brief, the attorneys general support the plaintiffs, arguing that preliminary injunctive relief reinstating this funding while litigation continues is in the public interest because:

• Enforcing conditions on VAWA-funded services for California residents would cause severe harm, particularly in addressing domestic violence and sexual assault.
• VAWA funds are vital for training law enforcement, improving victim services for underserved populations, and assisting victims with immigration matters. 

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

A copy of the amicus brief, which is subject to court approval, can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday, as part of a multistate coalition, filed a motion for preliminary injunction to block the U.S. Department of Education from unlawfully discontinuing grants awarded through Congressionally-established school mental health funding programs, including roughly $200 million awarded to local education agencies, county offices of education, and universities in California. The motion for preliminary injunction seeks to block the Trump Administration from implementing their non-continuation decision, and ensure grant funding continues to flow to grantees who received discontinuation letters irrespective of the performance and success of their projects.

“The Trump Administration’s Department of Education should be focused on supporting the success and education of our students, but instead they are using flimsy and unlawful excuses to rip funding from projects that support the mental health and well-being of our students,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The loss of this funding would cause immense harm to California students, especially in our low-income and rural communities. That’s why we are back in court, fighting to ensure that our students have access to mental health programs that work. We’re asking the court to block the Trump Administration’s illegal actions while litigation continues.” 

BACKGROUND: 

On June 30, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 16 states in suing the Trump Administration’s Department of Education over their unlawful decision to discontinue grants awarded through Congressionally-established school mental health funding programs. If allowed to stand, starting this fall, many states’ elementary and secondary schools will lose mental health services critical to students’ well-being, safety, and academic success. The Department had awarded this funding to the nation’s high-need, low-income, and rural schools pursuant to its Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program and its School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to safeguard this critical funding, which fosters safe and supportive learning environments, and supports the well-being of our students. 

Despite the success of these mental health programs, on or about April 29, 2025, the Department sent boilerplate notices to grantees, including state education agencies, local education agencies, and institutes of higher education, claiming that their grants conflicted with the Trump Administration’s priorities and would not be continued. The notices claimed the Department intends to reallocate funds based on new priorities of “merit, fairness, and excellence in education,” providing little to no insight into the basis for the discontinuance, while destroying projects years in the making. However, in the press, the Trump Administration admitted that it targeted Plaintiff States’ grants for their perceived diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, which the States argue is not a legal basis for discontinuation. In the lawsuit, the attorneys general argue that the Trump Administration’s decision to discontinue funding through a vague boilerplate notice, without any mention of grantees’ performance, violates the Administrative Procedure Act and is an unconstitutional violation of the Spending Clause and Separation of Powers. 

A copy of the motion for preliminary injunction is available here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday joined a lawsuit led by the attorneys general of New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland, suing the Trump Administration’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), over its official plans to return thousands of forced reset triggers (FRTs) into communities across the United States. A semi-automatic firearm equipped with an FRT allows a shooter to engage in sustained rapid fire, similar to a fully automatic machine gun, so long as the trigger is held down. Thus, a firearm equipped with an FRT can unleash massive carnage in mere seconds. Although ATF previously classified FRTs as illegal machine guns, the Trump Administration’s ATF signed a settlement agreement reverting that classification and agreed to return thousands of seized FRTs into communities across the United States. Following the Trump Administration’s settlement, Attorney General Bonta issued a law enforcement bulletin, reminding law enforcement that the Trump Administration’s settlement does not alter the fact that FRTs remain illegal under California law. In an amended complaint filed yesterday, California joined the coalition of 16 other attorneys general in this litigation to prevent the imminent redistribution of FRTs that are illegal to possess under federal law.

“It is a devastating fact that in our nation, children and teens are more likely to die by gun violence than any illness or accident. In California, we know that commonsense gun laws save lives, and we won’t stand idly by as the Trump Administration pours illegal weapons into our communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Forced reset triggers turn firearms into deadlier machine guns, and they are illegal in California. We’re joining this lawsuit to prevent FRTs from entering California and to challenge the unlawful settlement agreement entered by the Trump Administration with manufacturers of FRTs.”

Despite the federal prohibition, ATF estimates that at least 100,000 FRTs have been distributed across the country in recent years. FRTs have become increasingly popular, including among individuals who are prohibited from possessing any firearms under federal law. ATF’s records also establish that machine gun conversion devices, including FRTs, are showing up more often at crime scenes. 

Multiple lawsuits seeking either to enforce or challenge the prohibition on FRTs were filed during the Biden Administration. A federal judge in New York agreed that FRTs are banned under federal law. A federal judge in Texas disagreed and held that FRTs do not qualify as machine guns under federal law, but that ruling was on appeal when the Trump Administration announced that it had settled these lawsuits — in a way that eviscerates the federal FRT prohibition. ATF has agreed to abandon its enforcement actions and appeals; promised to stop enforcing the federal ban on machine guns against FRTs, even against individuals and sellers who were not parties to any of these lawsuits; and pledged to return FRTs that it previously seized.

This multistate lawsuit seeks to prevent the return of FRTs, arguing that they are prohibited by federal law, which prohibits anyone from owning machine guns, including devices that convert semi-automatic firearms into machine guns. The federal government cannot violate federal law, even when it tries to bury those violations in a settlement agreement. The lawsuit also argues that the return of FRTs will permanently threaten public safety nationwide. And, as the lawsuit highlights, ATF has even admitted that returning FRTs in states that prohibit them would “aid and abet” violations of state laws. In California, FRTs are “multiburst trigger activators” under Penal Code section 16930, and under Penal Code section 32900, an FRT cannot be owned, sold, offered for sale, manufactured, imported, given away, or lent. An influx of FRTs into California communities would harm public safety and increase costs to the State.

Attorney General Bonta yesterday, through the amended complaint, joins the attorneys general of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Colorado, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia in the lawsuit.

A copy of the amended complaint is available here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a multistate coalition in submitting an amicus brief in Vasquez Perdomo et al. v Noem et al., supporting plaintiffs seeking a temporary restraining order to enjoin the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from engaging in unconstitutional and unlawful stops of Los Angeles residents during immigration sweeps. The lawsuit comes amid the Trump Administration conducting aggressive, militaristic immigration raids in Los Angeles that have terrified immigrant and non-immigrant residents alike, chilled community members’ participation in civic society, and impeded law enforcement and public safety. 

“The actions of ICE and CBP during the raids in Los Angeles are part of a cruel and familiar pattern of attacks on our immigrant communities by an administration that thrives on fear and division,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Let me be crystal clear: These raids are not about safety or justice. They are about meeting enforcement quotas and striking fear in our communities. We won’t be silent. We won’t back down. We will continue to hold the federal government accountable when it violates the Constitution and federal law.” 

“The Fourth Amendment protects every person from unreasonable searches and seizures," said Governor Gavin Newsom. “Instead of targeting dangerous criminals, federal agents are detaining U.S. citizens, ripping families apart, and vanishing people to meet indiscriminate arrest quotas without regard to due process and constitutional rights that protect all of us from cruelty and injustice. Their actions imperil the fabric of our democracy, society, and economy. This isn't law and order — it’s cruelty and chaos. We stand solidly in support of progress, of the law, and the foundation upon which our founding fathers built this great nation.”

During his presidential campaign, President Donald Trump promised an aggressive and militarized crackdown on undocumented immigration, praising a 1954 enforcement initiative under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, offensively named “Operation Wetback,” that involved the mass arrest and deportation of 300,000 people, including U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, history is repeating itself. Masked immigration agents are conducting unannounced enforcement actions throughout California communities and, in all too many instances, stopping residents without so much as a reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct, leaving people afraid to leave their homes. The dragnet has resulted in U.S. citizens being wrongfully detained and has created a culture of fear and COVID-style ghost towns.

In their motion for a temporary restraining order, plaintiffs allege that ICE and CBP have a policy and practice of engaging in unconstitutional stops that are not based on a reasonable, individualized suspicion of unlawful presence, but are instead based on racial profiling.

In today’s amicus brief, the attorneys general support the plaintiffs, arguing that preliminary injunctive relief is in the public interest because: 

• CBP and ICE engaging in unlawful stops of Californians without a reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity has harmed local economies, public health, and several other core facets of daily life.
• Federal law enforcement’s tactics in conducting these stops, which include wearing masks and concealing the law enforcement entity they work for, have impeded local law enforcement and threatened public safety. 

This amicus brief comes after Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration challenging the President’s order to federalize the California National Guard and redirect hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles. 

In submitting the brief, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

A copy of the amicus brief, which is subject to court approval, can be found here.