Federal Accountability

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 24 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement in response to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granting the coalition’s request for a preliminary injunction, which ensures that key provisions of the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS) drastic, unprecedented, and unlawful changes to mail voting remain blocked through the November elections. Oral argument on the coalition’s request for a preliminary injunction was held on September 3. The court had previously issued a temporary restraining order on August 27 that blocked the changes for 14 days.

“We’ve now secured longer-term relief that will keep the USPS changes blocked while our case moves forward,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We will continue to take all steps to stop the Trump Administration from trampling on voting rights and restricting mail voting.” 

The USPS changes at issue, which were mandated by President Trump’s second elections-related Executive Order, would require state and local election officials to redesign and reprint ballot envelopes, enroll millions of voters in a new and untested USPS system, and meet burdensome requirements that would allow USPS to refuse to deliver mail ballots that do not comply. In a recent court filing, USPS admitted that the technology to implement the rule is not even available. And a recent whistleblower report also warned of “potentially catastrophic problems” and characterized the Trump Administration’s efforts as “sloppy and rushed.” In response, the coalition filed the whistleblower report with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and cited it in its opposition brief to the government’s request to stay the case before the First Circuit. 

Attorney General Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown co-led the coalition in filing a lawsuit over the USPS changes on August 26. They were joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin, as well as the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a preliminary injunction in the ongoing challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) attack on California's emission standards. In June 2026, President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin purported to reclassify four Clean Air Act preemption waivers — previously granted to California to improve air quality and protect public health — in an unlawful attempt to circumvent administrative procedure and attack state emissions rules. Shortly thereafter, Attorney General Bonta, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the reclassifications, but the EPA then moved to reclassify two additional preemption waivers before the court even had an opportunity to rule. Today, the district court rejected EPA’s “gamesmanship,” concluding it “may seem like a clever policy move, but undermines honest compliance with the law, which is what Americans should expect from executive branch agencies.” The court’s order requires EPA to withdraw or correct its unlawful reclassifications and refrain from giving them — or other reclassifications — any effect.

“When it comes to environmental integrity, posterity demands that we act. The bottom line is that California is taking many steps forward to protect the environment and public health while President Trump is taking six steps back,” said Attorney General Bonta. “For 50 years, both Democratic and Republican administrations have upheld California’s authority to enforce state emission standards, but this administration thinks it can roll back the clock and sow chaos even while our lawsuit plays out in court. Today’s decision is a key victory that rebuffs President Trump’s prior efforts. Federal emission standards should be a baseline to protect our future, not a ceiling to limit it.”

BACKGROUND

In June 2026, the EPA purported to reclassify four Clean Air Act preemption waiver orders into rules subject to congressional disapproval and sent them to Congress in apparent pursuit of such disapproval. The four waivers, which apply to emissions standards for cars and small offroad engines, enable California to enforce state-level emission standards to address air pollution. In July 2026, the EPA purported to reclassify two additional preemption waivers, specifically for emissions from ocean-going ships in port and commercial harbor craft, while the others were being challenged in court. In the more than 50 years since the Clean Air Act was enacted, waivers have never been considered rules subject to congressional disapproval. Nor have any other agency orders that adjudicate requests for permission, such as oil and gas leases or mining permits. However, the EPA purported to reclassify these waivers as rules and submitted them to Congress in an unlawful attempt to end-run administrative procedure and attack California’s authority to protect its own communities and environment.

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set federal emission standards for air pollutants that endanger public health or welfare. The Act also allows California to adopt more stringent emission requirements independent of the EPA’s regulations, and the Act requires the EPA to approve preemption waivers for California’s requirements absent certain, limited circumstances not present here. Historically, the EPA — under both Republican and Democratic administrations — has granted California more than 75 preemption waivers for updates to the state’s emissions control programs. As Congress intended, these waivers have allowed California to improve those programs, which pre-existed the federal government’s efforts to regulate these emissions via the Act. Today’s preliminary injunction requires the EPA to restore the longstanding status quo by withdrawing or correcting its reclassifications and refraining from giving those actions any effect.  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued the following statement after the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a coalition of states’ request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), halting core parts of the Trump Administration’s U.S. Postal Service (USPS) final rule which unlawfully attempts to interfere with states’ constitutional authority to administer elections. Yesterday, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 24 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania in challenging the rule that requires state and local election officials to redesign and reprint their ballot envelopes, enroll millions of voters with USPS, and directs USPS to reject ballot mailings that do not meet these requirements, as directed by President Trump’s second elections-related Executive Order (EO) No. 14399. Nationwide, voting rights groups also sued to challenge the unlawful impacts on voters. The TRO, issued today in both cases, prevents core parts of the rule from being implemented or enforced for 14 days, while the court considers whether to issue a preliminary injunction that would allow states to administer the midterm elections unimpeded by these unlawful requirements.

“From the beginning, it’s been clear that President Trump doesn’t understand how elections work. He’s repeatedly broken the law, so we’ve repeatedly taken him to court,” said Attorney General Bonta. “On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order on the emergency docket stating we brought our lawsuit too early but did not address the merits of our challenge to the President’s executive order seeking to impose additional, unlawful restrictions on the ability to vote by mail. Just two days later, consistent with that order, we sued to stop the illegal USPS rule in its tracks. Today, the district court blocked the rule, making it clear that President Trump must keep his hands off our elections. The right to vote is a foundational principle of our democracy, and we’re making sure it remains protected for everyone.”

BACKGROUND

Over the past several decades, voting by mail has become increasingly utilized by voters across the country — including President Trump. During the 2024 general election, nearly 1 in 3 Americans voted by mail. Since the inception of vote-by-mail, Congress has never exercised its authority to limit it and, in fact, has only taken action to expand and protect mail voting for military and overseas voters. Congress has also never authorized USPS to monitor or control the transmission of mail ballots. States — not USPS or the President — have the authority to regulate federal elections, subject to preemption only by Congress. 

However, President Trump has been continuously attempting to exceed his authority and interfere with states’ ability to administer elections. On March 31, President Trump issued an EO attempting to establish a national list of eligible voters and directing USPS to transmit mail ballots only to voters on the list. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump Administration’s emergency request to stay an injunction that had previously blocked key provisions of the order from being implemented for the November elections. The coalition states subsequently challenged the USPS final rule that came in response to the March EO. Today’s order halts — for a period of 14 days — USPS’s ability to force states to redesign ballots and enroll their voters with USPS for the upcoming elections, on pain of having their ballot mailings blocked. The coalition simultaneously asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction which remains pending.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general and two governors in filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over recent efforts to upend the Title X federal family planning program. For over 50 years, the Title X program has provided access to effective contraceptive methods, cancer screenings, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted illnesses, and other preventive services through a nationwide network of clinics that are the only source of healthcare for millions of people. Earlier this summer, the Trump Administration issued its Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) which outlined what Title X grantees must do to obtain funding. The Trump NOFO transforms this crucial program by requiring all Title X grantees to modify their existing programs to align with a number of political priorities including anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion, anti-gender ideology, and directive counseling. In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the NOFO’s provisions undercut the purpose of Title X and violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) along with the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“Title X is about making family planning and reproductive care accessible to all, but President Trump is trying to use ideologically driven conditions to unravel this historically bipartisan safety net and fashion it into a political bludgeon,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Conditioning millions of dollars in federal funding doesn’t make America healthier, it makes care harder. That’s why we’re taking the Trump Administration to court, to safeguard access to this critical care for everyone — including the over 460,000 individuals in California who rely on Title X for healthcare services. Let me be clear: California will remain ironclad in protecting reproductive care.”   

BACKGROUND

Title X enjoys bipartisan support, and Congress has funded it continuously for over 50 years. It is the only federal funding stream dedicated specifically to supporting family planning methods and services, such as contraception, infertility services, access to birth control, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted illnesses, and cancer screenings. These services have been critical in helping millions of people, especially low-income women, control their own reproductive decision-making and improve their social and economic futures. For every dollar invested in publicly funded family planning programs like Title X, federal and state governments save taxpayer funds by preventing unintended pregnancies, adverse birth effects, sexually transmitted illnesses, and cervical cancer. California has the largest Title X program in the nation, providing services to over 460,000 residents, but the imposition of the Trump Administration’s NOFO now leaves communities at risk of losing funds for quality, evidence-based family planning services. 

The new guidelines impose requirements on the grantees themselves — including grantees in California — forcing them to align with a number of Trump Administration priorities that conflict with Title X’s intent. Those priorities include ending diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, excluding and stigmatizing transgender individuals, targeting providers of gender-affirming care, elevating natural family planning over other forms of birth control, and displacing patient-directed family planning. Several aspects of the NOFO would turn the Title X program on its head. For instance, Trump’s new Title X program would require all patients be counseled towards marriage and parenthood. Grantees will also be assessed for demonstrations of ongoing compliance with the Administration’s priorities and require demonstrations of ongoing compliance, further threatening whether states and other grantees will be able to receive funding.

In the lawsuit, the coalition argues that the new conditions are: 

• Arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA and conflict with Title X law and regulations as well as the congressional purpose underpinning Title X.
• In violation of the APA without observance of procedure required by law.
• Unconstitutionally vague and in violation of the Spending Clause because they do not give applicants fair notice of the conditions for receiving or maintaining Title X funding.

In filing this lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the governors of Pennsylvania and Kentucky.

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 24 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) challenging its final rule which unlawfully attempts to interfere with states’ constitutional authority to administer elections by allowing USPS to reject mail, offer non-postal services, and discriminate among users of the mail. The final rule follows President Trump’s second elections-related Executive Order (EO) — No. 14399 — which required USPS to issue regulations prohibiting the mailing of ballots for voters who are not included on new USPS lists of “enrolled” mail voters. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump Administration’s emergency request to stay an injunction that had previously blocked key provisions of the order from being implemented for the November elections in the coalition states. The Supreme Court ruled that the coalition’s challenge to the EO was filed too early, but that the coalition could still challenge the USPS rule implementing that EO. In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the USPS final rule is a catastrophe for voting rights that is unconstitutional, contrary to statute, and ultra vires, because it interferes with states' authority to administer elections, imposes immediate burdens on elections officials, harms their preparations for upcoming elections, and jeopardizes mail-in voting. The coalition is also filing a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block the rule's implementation while litigation continues.

“This mail-in voting rule is an unlawful overreach that shows just how far President Trump will go to control elections, but as I’ve said before, this fight is far from over and we are confident that the facts and the law are on our side,” said Attorney General Bonta. “On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to fully close the door on the President’s attempt to interfere in our election administration. Today, we’re taking legal action to stop this unlawful rule in its tracks and ensure that voters can exercise their constitutional right to vote. Let’s be clear: the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to regulate elections — not the President and not USPS. Ballots are an extension of our voices and we’re asking the court to ensure that every person has the right to make theirs heard.”

"Donald Trump does not run elections. States do. And his latest attack on democracy is proof of how weak he has become,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “California will continue to lead the way in defending democracy — using every tool at our disposal and every minute in our day. This perilous moment in history demands no less from us.” 

BACKGROUND

On March 31, President Trump issued an EO attempting to establish a national list of eligible voters and directing the U.S. Postal Service to transmit mail ballots only to voters on the list. On August 21, USPS announced a new rule implementing the President’s demands that require states to enroll every voter who is eligible to vote by mail with USPS and tasking USPS with compiling the enrolled voters into state-specific lists. The rule also establishes new design requirements for mail-in ballot envelopes, which states are required to meet and get approved by USPS. USPS also stated it will not deliver ballots to voters who do not appear on the USPS-generated lists and will not deliver ballots in envelopes that fail to comply with the rule’s new standards.

However, it is states — not USPS or the President — that have authority to regulate federal elections, subject to preemption only by Congress. This USPS rule violates the Constitution, and upends successful, longstanding vote-by-mail procedures that communities are entitled to under state law. Over the past several decades, voting by mail has become increasingly utilized by voters across the country — including President Trump. During the 2024 general election, nearly 1 in 3 Americans voted by mail. Since the inception of vote-by-mail, Congress has never exercised its authority to limit it, and in fact, has only taken action to expand and protect mail voting for military and overseas voters. Congress has also never authorized USPS to monitor or control the transmission of mail ballots. 

This rule brazenly seizes power over mail-in voting and contravenes restrictions on USPS’s ability to reject mail, to offer-non postal services, and to discriminate among users of the mail. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the rule is inconsistent with USPS’s governing statutes, ignores USPS’s procedural requirements, violates the Privacy Act, and is inconsistent with federal voting rights law. The coalition asks the court to strike down the unlawful rule and issue a temporary restraining order preventing the rule from taking effect while the litigation proceeds.

In filing this lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown co-lead the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted a coalition of states’ request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) halting the Trump Administration’s attempt to obtain the sensitive personal information of drivers who have either a commercial driver’s license or commercial driver’s permit required to drive large, heavy, or hazardous commercial vehicles. Last week, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition in suing the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) after it threatened to withhold funding to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) if it did not comply with demands for commercial driver data including drivers’ names, license numbers, licensing states, and more. The states simultaneously challenged an administrative subpoena from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the same data, and the court also paused that attempt.

“Just last week, I joined attorneys general across the country to challenge the Trump Administration, yet again, for attempting to seize personal, sensitive data on commercial drivers, and now the court has put a stop to these unlawful efforts,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today’s ruling marks another important step in making sure Americans’ privacy rights remain protected and resolute. When the President forgets the rules of the road, we’ll be there to remind him.”  

BACKGROUND

AAMVA operates a federally mandated system called the Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS). States use CDLIS to search for specific individuals applying for a commercial driver’s license, which is required to operate large, heavy, or hazardous commercial vehicles, such as semi-trucks, as opposed to a standard driver’s license that allows a driver to operate a passenger vehicle. CDLIS allows states, for example, to confirm that a person applying for a commercial driver’s license does not have such a license in another state. The federal government has historically used the information system to search for records on an individual basis, but FMCSA recently threatened to withhold funding for AAMVA and terminate the cooperative agreement under which CDLIS exists and operates, subject to demands for the records of millions of people in the system. DHS, in coordination with FMCSA, issued a separate subpoena seeking these very same records.

Last week, Attorney General Bonta and a multistate coalition challenged the demand for CDLIS data, arguing that it is unconstitutional, exceeds the Trump Administration’s authority, and violates the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act along with the federal Privacy Act, and challenged DHS’s subpoena. Today’s orders temporarily halt this broad demand for information.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a multistate comment letter in opposition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) draft risk evaluation for Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TBBPA is a flame-retardant widely used in consumer products, mainly plastic enclosures for electronics, and also in furniture and textile items and building and construction materials. Exposure to TBBPA may result in detrimental health impacts, including diseases associated with its neuro-, immuno-, and reproductive toxicities and cancer, and infants and children are particularly vulnerable to TBBPA exposure. In the letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that EPA’s deficient draft risk evaluation ignores the health risks of TBBPA exposure in consumer products, and, if adopted, would undermine existing protections several states have adopted to restrict the use of TBBPA to protect their residents against its harmful health effects.

“The Trump Administration’s draft risk evaluation would endanger consumers by resulting in weaker regulations that expose them to preventable health risks,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California will not stand for decisions that put the health and well-being of our residents and Americans nationwide at risk. We strongly urge the EPA to withdraw this draft risk evaluation immediately.”

Enacted in 1976, TSCA gives the EPA the authority to regulate chemical substances to protect human health and the environment and to require manufacturers and importers to provide information on chemical substances. TSCA allows the EPA to evaluate existing and new chemicals for safety and requires the EPA to restrict or ban chemicals that pose unreasonable risks of injury to human health or the environment. In 2019, the EPA designated TBBPA as “High-Priority Substance” for risk evaluation under TSCA. The EPA identified significant concerns that TBBPA may pose detrimental health risks through chronic exposures.

California has long recognized the need for strong protections against TBBPA exposure. In 2018, California passed Assembly Bill 2998, which restricted the sale and distribution of juvenile products, upholstered furniture, replacement components of reupholstered furniture, and the foam in mattresses, that contain certain flame-retardant chemicals, including TBBPA. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has also listed TBBPA on California’s Proposition 65 list of carcinogens because it is a probable human carcinogen. 

The coalition asserts that the EPA’s draft risk evaluation fails to:

• Include all the intended, known, or foreseeable uses of TBBPA in the conditions of use evaluated and makes separate risk determinations for workers, consumers, and the general population.
• Consider aggregate exposures and risks and evaluate TBBPA within a class of other flame retardants by using the best available science, as required by TSCA.
• Account for existing state regulations which may be impacted by EPA’s final risk evaluation for TBBPA. 

In filing the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, and the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York.

OAKLAND — Co-leading a multistate coalition alongside the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New Jersey, California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday secured a major victory after the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts struck down a key provision of a Trump Administration final rule that would have excluded coverage of certain types of gender-affirming care as essential health benefits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Essential health benefits are subject to the ACA’s financial protections, including limits on out-of-pocket costs.

“Everyone deserves access to health coverage,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration tried to exclude gender-affirming care from qualifying as an essential health benefit. We fought back, and the court’s ruling means this care can — and in many states must — qualify for the ACA’s financial protections, ensuring transgender people have an equal opportunity to benefit from the ACA.”

The final rule at issue — the “Marketplace Integrity and Affordability” rule — was proposed by the Trump Administration in March 2025 to curb alleged ACA enrollment fraud and reduce federal spending on subsidies that help consumers afford ACA coverage. Among other changes, the rule would have removed certain types of gender-affirming care from the ACA’s 10 essential health benefit categories. 

In July 2025, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition filed a lawsuit challenging nine separate provisions of the final rule, arguing that they would make it harder for consumers to get coverage through the ACA, increase costs for states, and weaken key ACA protections. Seven were later vacated in separate litigation, City of Columbus et al. v. Kennedy et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the Trump Administration unlawfully modified the categories of essential health benefits without following the proper procedures the ACA requires.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a multistate coalition in filing two lawsuits — against the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — that challenge the Trump Administration’s attempt to obtain the sensitive personal information of millions of drivers who have either a commercial driver’s license or commercial driver’s permit required to drive large, heavy, or hazardous commercial vehicles. The two federal agencies are demanding that the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) produce this sensitive information, which includes drivers’ names, license numbers, licensing states, and more. In the lawsuits, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that this broad demand for information is another example of federal overreach that weaponizes the personal data of specialized commercial drivers and runs afoul of the law. 

“True to form, the Trump Administration is again attempting to seize personal, sensitive data — this time from commercial drivers. Any such attempt is a capricious and dangerous federal overreach that must be stopped,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We’ve sued to block the blatant misuse of Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF data, and today, we’re suing again. Let me be clear: when the President crosses the line, we’ll be there to stand up for privacy rights and keep him in his lane. If the President wants to stop going to court, he should stop breaking the law.”

BACKGROUND

Founded in 1933, AAMVA represents state, provincial, and territorial motor vehicle officials in the United States and Canada. Among other functions, AAMVA operates a federally mandated system called the Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS). States use CDLIS to search for specific individuals applying for a commercial driver’s license, which is required to operate large, heavy, or hazardous commercial vehicles, such as semi-trucks, as opposed to a standard driver’s license that allows a driver to operate a passenger vehicle. CDLIS allows states, for example, to confirm that a person applying for a commercial driver’s license does not have such a license in another state. 

The federal government has historically used the information system to search for records on an individual basis, but FMCSA has now threatened to withhold funding for AAMVA and terminate the cooperative agreement under which CDLIS exists and operates, subject to demands for the records of millions of people in the system — resulting in another dangerous attempt to obtain sensitive data. DHS, in coordination with FMCSA, has issued a subpoena seeking these very same records. In the lawsuits, among other arguments, the coalition argues that these demands for CDLIS data exceed FMCSA’s and DHS’s authority, are barred by the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act, and are barred by the protections of the federal Privacy Act.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to protecting personal and private data. Last week, Attorney General Bonta sued over the Trump Administration’s attempt to weaponize sensitive personal information about California families and children. He has also sued and secured a court order blocking the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from providing DHS with unfettered access to individual personal health data. Previously, he also challenged and secured relief blocking the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s demand that states turn over personal and sensitive information about millions of SNAP recipients.

In filing these lawsuits, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the state of Pennsylvania. Additionally, the attorney general of Minnesota joined the DHS case. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a coalition of 10 attorneys general, filed a lawsuit to block the Trump Administration’s latest effort to favor big business over working families. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, challenges two rules by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) that invalidate state laws requiring mortgage lenders to pay interest on the money they require borrowers to deposit into escrow accounts to cover taxes and insurance. These laws are designed to prevent lenders from profiting from interest-free deposits at the borrower’s expense and are consistent with limitations enacted by Congress. 

“The Trump Administration is attempting to slash critical state consumer protection laws that protect homeowners, a decision that would take money away from Californians and put it right into the pockets of big banks. This is blatantly illegal and will only worsen the affordability crisis felt by people up and down our state,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Alongside attorneys general nationwide, we are taking the Trump Administration to court yet again, and in doing so, standing up for states’ rights to protect consumers from financial exploitation.” 

California law requires financial institutions, including banks, to pay at least 2% annual interest on funds deposited in mortgage escrow accounts. Funds in an escrow account can be used by lenders to ensure timely payment of property taxes and insurance. These state interest-on-escrow laws are a simple and important consumer protection. Before they were enacted, some lenders would require significant deposits in escrow earlier than was needed to timely pay taxes and insurance, and would not pay any interest to the borrower, giving the lender essentially an interest-free loan at the borrower’s expense. The interest-on-escrow laws help ensure that borrowers are treated fairly.

In May 2026, responding to a request from banking lobbyists, the OCC issued rules that purport to invalidate state laws, including California’s, that require lenders to share the money they earn on borrowers’ escrowed funds with the borrowers themselves. It’s not just borrowers who lose out under the OCC’s rules. Because they only exempt national banks from California’s interest-on-escrow law, smaller, state-chartered banks are left at a disadvantage. In today’s lawsuit, the attorneys general argue that the OCC’s rules exceed the agency’s rulemaking authority per the Administrative Procedure Act and challenge states’ sovereign interest in enforcing our own consumer protection statutes. If allowed to stand, borrowers could lose out on thousands of dollars in interest payments every year.  

In bringing this lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Oregon, New York, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Vermont.