Federal Accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAN JOSÉ — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti today filed a lawsuit seeking to block the illegal development of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in unincorporated Santa Clara County near Gilroy, California. In January 2025, a private developer leased the property to the federal government for use by ICE — likely as an Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) office. ERO offices, which are only designed for administrative use and short-term detainment, have been the subject of numerous lawsuits during the Trump Administration, and investigative reports have revealed frequent overcrowding, long-term confinement, and inhumane conditions. In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Attorney General Bonta and County Counsel LoPresti ask the court to permanently enjoin construction of this facility, claiming that it violates the National Environmental Policy Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and California’s Williamson Act.

“President Trump’s mass detention and deportation campaign has led to cruel, inhumane, and unacceptable conditions at immigration holding and detention facilities across California. But instead of working to improve conditions at these facilities — instead of enforcing ICE’s own detention standards — the Trump Administration is trying to jam through a new facility on a community that doesn’t want it,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Under this Administration, we’ve seen ICE offices have become mini-detention centers, despite being unequipped for long-term holding. That’s unacceptable. So is the secrecy surrounding the details of this project. But one thing is clear: ICE’s plans to construct a facility near Gilroy violates multiple federal laws. We’re suing to stop this project and protect the interests of California communities.” 

“Since President Trump took office, the County of Santa Clara has made clear that we won’t tolerate a federal government that abuses the law and jeopardizes the rights and well-being of our immigrant communities,” said County Counsel Tony LoPresti.  “We’re proud to stand alongside Attorney General Bonta in opposing this reckless attempt to build an ICE facility on sensitive and protected land without regard to its impacts on the environment, the community, and, most critically, the humans who would be detained there.”

At the direction of President Trump, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its subordinate office, ICE, have in recent months attempted to reshape the immigration enforcement process into, in their own words, “[Amazon] Prime, but with human beings.” Part and parcel to this scheme has been DHS’s purchase or lease of facilities — often unsuitable for human habitation — and their rushed conversion for immigration detention and processing purposes.  

Since leasing the property near Gilroy, the federal government has proceeded with a plan to quickly and surreptitiously develop a facility. In doing so, the federal government has ignored important environmental concerns and federal laws. The construction of the facility threatens to permanently destroy the ecosystem, habitat, and agricultural value of land that the County, and the State have protected for exclusive agricultural use since at least the 1960s. The project could also have severe impacts on vital infrastructure, straining waste and drinking water infrastructure and leading to the deterioration of critical roadways. 

In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and County Counsel LoPresti make clear that the development of an ICE facility on this land is illegal because it violates: 

• National Environmental Policy Act: The federal government’s decision to enter a lease agreement and begin construction for an ICE facility at the property is a major federal action with likely significant impacts to the human environment. The federal government was required to produce either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement before entering the lease and beginning construction, which it failed to do.
• Immigration and Nationality Act: The property is not an appropriate place of detention, because it is located in an area known to support several endangered and threatened species, exists in a zone exclusively for agricultural use, and is subject to a Williamson Act contract with the County that allows only agricultural use in exchange for tax benefits.
• Intergovernmental Cooperation Act: The federal government did not sufficiently attempt to consult with the County or the State to solicit their views about the project, and the federal government’s obscurement of its plans to develop and operate an ICE facility at the property prevented the County and the State from providing input to the federal government, in violation of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act’s consultation mandate.
• Administrative Procedure Act: The federal government’s construction of the project violates the above laws and should therefore be set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act. 
• Williamson Act: The property owner and federal government must comply with a Williamson Act contract that applies to the land and which restricts the land exclusively to agricultural and agricultural-compatible uses in exchange for significant property tax benefits. The property owner completed none of the procedural steps required to relieve itself of its Williamson Act contract obligations prior to proceeding with this impermissible use.  

Attorney General Bonta is committed to holding ICE accountable and standing up for California’s immigrant communities. Attorney General Bonta previously led amicus briefs in supporting Minnesota’s lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s extraordinary campaign of lawlessness during its deployment of ICE, in opposing unlawful immigration stops in the Central Valley, and to stop ICE and Customs and Border Protection from engaging in unlawful practices in Los Angeles. 

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

The County of Santa Clara is a national leader among local governments in establishing local policies and taking groundbreaking legal action to protect immigrant communities. The County has held firm to its longstanding pro-immigrant policies through both Trump Administrations, including filing multiple lawsuits to protect those policies. Among other examples, the County, in partnership with San Francisco, led a coalition of local governments in both 2017 and 2025 to successfully challenge President Trump’s repeated attempts to defund “sanctuary jurisdictions” — cities and counties that prohibit using local resources to assist in federal immigration enforcement efforts. The County has also filed several successful lawsuits enjoining the federal administration from conditioning grant funds on local cooperation with immigration enforcement. The County currently has an active docket of 11 cases against the Trump Administration, including this latest filing.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today celebrated a final ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts finding unlawful and vacating the Trump Administration’s policy imposing a $100,000 tax payment on new H-1B visa petitions. H-1B visas allow U.S. employers to hire highly skilled foreign national workers in roles that require specialized skills, including as teachers, physicians, researchers, nurses, and other vital workers, to alleviate nationwide labor shortages. The tax has created a costly barrier for employers, weakened the economy, and disrupted essential services, especially for public sector and government employers trying to fill these positions. Attorney General Bonta led a multistate coalition in challenging the policy in December 2025. 

“The judgment is in! The Trump Administration’s unlawful and costly $100,000 tax has been struck down. This tax was an attack on America’s ability to attract and retain the high-skilled talent that strengthens our economy and helps us meet critical workforce needs,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California remains open for business, open to talent, and committed to ensuring our communities have essential services — from healthcare to education — that depend on a strong, skilled workforce.”

BACKGROUND

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

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

On September 19, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation ordering an unprecedented $100,000 tax payment for new H-1B visa petitions, undermining the very purpose of the H-1B visa by making it harder to address severe labor shortages in critical fields such as education and healthcare and ultimately worsening the staffing crisis. As implemented by DHS through a series of written documents, the policy affected any application filed after September 21, 2025, and granted the Secretary of Homeland Security broad discretion to determine which petitions are subject to the fee or for an exemption, raising concerns that the enforcement could be applied selectively against employers disfavored by the Trump Administration. The $100,000 visa tax was devastating for all states, including California, and threatened the quality of education, healthcare, and other core services available to our residents.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a coalition of 24 attorneys general and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s final rule that narrows the federal definition of a “professional degree” and would dramatically reduce the availability of federal student loans for some categories of professional students. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, argues that the Trump Administration’s new definition will exclude students seeking graduate degrees in nursing, physician assistant studies, physical therapy, and other professions from eligibility for higher student loan borrowing limits. This change will make it harder for these vital healthcare workers to pursue advanced degrees, threatening the availability of a critical workforce as well as the operations of healthcare systems in California and across the country.

“Across the nation, healthcare systems are underwater, with doctors, nurses, and other health professionals stretched to meet the needs of their communities. Nurses, physician assistants, and other health professionals are absolutely vital to keep our healthcare system running,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Now, the Trump Administration is threatening to make this crisis even worse by limiting students' access to the  federal student loans that make it possible to pursue the professional degrees needed for critical specialized work. This is not only illegal — it further strains an already strained system and threatens to reduce Californians’ access to medical care. We’ll see the President in court.” 

BACKGROUND 

For decades, the federal student loan program has expanded access to graduate and professional degrees without regard to discipline. By enabling more students to obtain post-baccalaureate degrees, the federal government has helped create a skilled workforce of well-paid professionals.

In July 2025, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which, in part, establishes annual and aggregate borrowing limits for federal student loans. It distinguishes between “graduate students” and “professional students” for the purposes of establishing the annual and aggregate loan limits. Prior to enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, students could borrow up to the full cost of attendance of a graduate program, regardless of whether it was considered a “graduate” or “professional” program. Under the statute, graduate students now have a $20,500 annual and $100,000 aggregate cap for borrowing, while “professional” students have a $50,000 annual and $200,000 aggregate cap.

Health professionals with advanced training through master’s or doctoral programs play critical roles in the U.S. healthcare system. The advanced training they receive allows them to fulfill specialized, vital roles in the healthcare process. Advance practice nurses with professional degrees, for example, provide essential, high-quality care to their patients, and they often do it in underserved, rural communities. Nurses, physician assistants, and other graduate health professionals can fill healthcare gaps by, among many other things, seeing patients, prescribing medication, and manning helplines. They are essential in fields that attract too few doctors because of relatively low pay, like family medicine, as well as in subspecialties that require years of specific training. The change in definition will discourage potential healthcare workers from entering the field, at a critical time when more dedicated professionals in these roles are needed. 

The new rule will also discourage students from seeking graduate degrees by making such degrees inaccessible or more expensive and may push students toward often-predatory private student loans. The rule is also expected to threaten states’ ability to meet critical workforce needs and exacerbate the shortage of health professionals in teaching positions, which will affect universities’ capacity to train the next generation of providers.

THE LAWSUIT

In the complaint today, the attorneys general challenge the restrictive definition of “professional degree,” which the coalition argues is contrary to law, in excess of statutory authority, and arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The coalition also challenges the arbitrary and capricious implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s grandfathering provision, which would disadvantage students who transfer schools or withdraw and then re-enroll. The Act provided that currently enrolled students who borrowed federal student loans as of June 30, 2026, are “grandfathered” into the preexisting loan limits. But the final rule excludes students who transfer institutions or withdraw and re-enroll from grandfathering. 

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

Trump Administration drops appeal of final order, permanently and fully resolving case in California’s favor

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced the successful resolution of a multistate lawsuit to stop the Trump Administration from unlawfully allocating federal homeland security funding to and from states based on their compliance with the Administration’s political agenda. In December, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted a motion for summary judgment brought by Attorney General Bonta, and a coalition of 11 other attorneys general, and the governor of Pennsylvania. The Trump Administration initially appealed the ruling, but dropped the appeal, resolving the case fully and permanently in California and the multistate coalition’s favor.

“The Trump Administration’s anti-public safety agenda was on full display when it tried to rip away critical homeland security funds from California and other Democratic-led states for partisan, political purposes,” said Attorney General Bonta. “These are funds that help us prepare for and protect against terrorism and other threats — not a political bargaining chip. My office successfully sued to stop this illegal diversion, and now, the Trump Administration has waved the white flag, ensuring these funds will flow to California as Congress intended.” 

In September 2025, without any notice or explanation, and four days before the end of the federal fiscal year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) significantly cut funding to certain states that are unwilling to divert law enforcement resources away from core public safety services to assist in enforcing federal immigration law, while reallocating those funds to other states.

FEMA issued award notifications in September for its single largest grant program, the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), which allocates approximately $1 billion in funds annually for state and municipal efforts to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophes. FEMA granted only $250 million to the 12 states that joined Attorney General Bonta in the lawsuit. This represents a nearly $242 million, or 49%, reduction from the total amount that FEMA had previously stated it would provide to these states. 

The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island ordered DHS to amend the HSGP awards issued to the plaintiff states to reflect the funding levels that DHS had previously stated it would allocate, before the last-minute changes. The court further held that other significant changes to emergency-preparedness programs, also made at the last minute at the end of the federal fiscal year, were unlawful and set them aside.

Attorney General Bonta was joined in filing the lawsuit by the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the governor of Pennsylvania.

Coalition seeks final ruling after filing lawsuit earlier this month to challenge unlawful executive order 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday co-led a coalition of 23 attorneys general, along with the Governor of Pennsylvania, in filing a motion for summary judgment in their ongoing challenge to President Trump’s executive order that unlawfully attempts to interfere with states’ constitutional authority to administer elections by restricting voter eligibility and mail voting to lists of voters pre-authorized by the federal government. The power to regulate elections belongs primarily to the states. The President has no constitutional authority to make or alter laws governing federal elections. Earlier this month, Attorney General Bonta co-led the same coalition in bringing a lawsuit against the Administration, arguing that Executive Order No. 14399, entitled Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections, is unconstitutional and beyond the authority of the President and other federal officials. The motion for summary judgment asks the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to permanently block enforcement of the key provisions of the executive order, on the grounds that the law is clear and the case can be decided without a trial.

“President Trump’s executive order not only represents a dangerous attempt to erode public trust in free and fair elections; it also reeks of desperation. Facing clear political headwinds — as he and Republicans are likely to suffer heavy losses in the upcoming midterm elections — he is throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks. This will not,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We are seeking summary judgment because we firmly believe that the law is on our side and that the case can be decided expeditiously. President Trump has used mail voting himself. If it’s good enough for him, it should be accessible to other voters without unnecessary and unlawful obstacles.”

The coalition’s motion for summary judgment argues, among other things, that:

• The executive order’s attempt to dictate federal voter eligibility lists for each state, and its attempt to coerce states to deny ballots to voters excluded from those lists, unconstitutionally invades the coalition states’ power over their voter rolls.
• The executive order’s attempt to charge the states and USPS with compiling mail voter eligibility lists, and its prohibition on USPS transmitting mail ballots from voters not on those lists are unconstitutional and run headlong into states’ and Congress’s authority to regulate elections and Congress’s power to regulate USPS.
• The executive order threatens serious injury to the coalition states, including harms to the states’ sovereign powers to administer their elections, fiscal injuries from states being forced to administer elections under the federal government’s new procedures, legal jeopardy to states and their elections officials from the executive order’s directives to investigate and prosecute those who issue ballots to individuals purportedly ineligible to vote in a federal election, and harms to states’ reputations and public trust.

The court has ordered the Trump Administration to file its response and related motions by Thursday, May 7, 2026. A hearing on the motions is scheduled for Tuesday, June 2, 2026 at 7:00 AM PT/10:00 AM ET. The complete scheduling order is available here. 

Attorney General Bonta co-led the filing of the motion along with Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown. They were joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin, as well as Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement after the Trump Administration dropped its appeal of a court decision upholding a preliminary injunction that blocked funding restrictions the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) attempted to place on its Continuum of Care (CoC) grant program. CoC is the federal government’s flagship program for funding affordable housing and other services for individuals at risk of and experiencing homelessness. As part of a coalition of 19 attorneys general and two governors, Attorney General Bonta sued the Trump Administration in November 2025 over the planned funding restrictions and secured a preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island blocking those changes. In February 2026, the Trump Administration filed a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, which the District Court denied. The Trump Administration appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which earlier this month, rejected HUD’s request to temporarily allow the restrictions to go into effect.

“We continue to fight for Californians and the rule of law, and we continue to win. HUD’s unlawful funding restrictions have been rejected by the courts, and because the Trump Administration has now dropped its appeal, our preliminary injunction remains in effect while the case proceeds to summary judgment,” said Attorney General Bonta. “People experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness need the federal government’s continued support — not a rollback of assistance. We will continue to closely monitor the Administration’s actions, seek accountability when the law is not followed, and litigate this case to the very end.”

Among other things, HUD has tried to dramatically reduce the amount of grant funds that could be spent on permanent housing and to penalize housing providers for recognizing gender identity and diversity. HUD has also attempted to disadvantage programs that address mental disabilities and substance use disorders. These conditions went against the explicit intent of Congress and HUD’s previous guidance.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that California is leading a multistate coalition in filing an amicus brief that supports affirmance of a district court order that granted the New York Attorney General’s motion to quash grand jury subpoenas issued by an Acting U.S. Attorney whose appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution. The district court found that the Acting U.S. Attorney lacked authority to issue the subpoenas and disqualified him from any further involvement in prosecuting or supervising any investigations related to the subject of the subpoenas. The subpoenas sought to probe New York’s investigations into the Trump Organization and the National Rifle Association (NRA). The brief is being filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

“Respect for the Constitution is not optional,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Appointments Clause exists to ensure accountability, transparency, and balance in our federal government. When that process is bypassed, it threatens not only the rule of law but also the ability of states to protect their residents from federal overreach.”

The coalition’s brief argues that adherence to the Appointments Clause is essential to preserving the separation of powers and protecting state sovereignty. It emphasizes that allowing improperly appointed officials to wield expansive grand jury authority risks undermining the integrity and reliability of the justice system.

Grounded in the history and purpose of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Appointments Clause was designed as a check on executive authority by requiring Senate advice and consent. As the brief explains, this process promotes the selection of qualified officials serving the national interest while ensuring that states, through their senators, have a voice in federal appointments— including for U.S. Attorneys whose decisions directly affect state residents. 

The brief also addresses the narrow statutory exception allowing temporary appointments as stopgaps while the Appointments Clause’s advice and consent process is completed, noting that such authority is strictly time-limited. This exception was misused in this instance because the Acting U.S. Attorney continued serving after the expiration of a prior temporary appointment, bypassing the constitutional confirmation process. 

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

Here is a copy of the brief. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 23 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania in filing a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s recent executive order, which unlawfully attempts to interfere with States’ constitutional authority to administer elections by restricting voter eligibility and mail voting to lists of voters pre-authorized by the federal government. The power to regulate elections belongs primarily to the States — the President has no constitutional authority to make or alter laws governing federal elections. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the coalition asserts that Executive Order No. 14399, entitled Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections, is unconstitutional and ultra vires. Accordingly, the coalition asks the court to declare specified provisions of the executive order unlawful and void. If not enjoined, the coalition argues that the States will suffer significant, imminent, and irreparable injuries. Voters of all parties, in all states, and of every demographic utilize mail voting — including the President himself.

“Once again, President Trump is trying to rewrite the rules of our elections. But he lacks the authority to do so — full stop,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The U.S. Constitution clearly gives States the primary authority over elections and gives zero authority to the President. This latest executive order is just another unlawful attempt to restrict voting, fueled by his fear of losing the upcoming midterm elections and based on wholly unfounded allegations of voter fraud.”

“Trump is lighting democracy on fire with every harmful, and hateful action he pursues. California will not sit idle while he tries to limit which American citizens can participate in our democracy,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom. “No one is above the U.S. Constitution — see you in court, Mr. President.”
 
“What we are not going to do today is sit idly by while a bully steamrolls over our democracy. The people of California and our nation grasp the magnitude of the threat to our constitutional rights and together, we will not let them slip away,” said California Secretary of State, Dr. Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D. “We will fight tooth and nail to defend our right to vote and the democratic principles our country must uphold.”

The executive order at issue, among other things, purports to:

• Direct the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to develop lists of eligible voters pre-authorized by the federal government as eligible to vote, and threatens state and local elections officials with criminal prosecution for mailing ballots to voters deemed ineligible.
• Direct the U.S. Postal Service, an independent federal agency, to develop separate lists of voters pre-authorized as “enrolled” for mail-in and absentee ballots, and to transmit return mail and absentee ballots only from those on the list. 
• Not only threaten elections officials and others with criminal prosecution, but also threaten States with the loss of federal funding for any “noncompliance with Federal law,” laying bare a scheme to coerce States into implementing the President’s new mail voting program.
• Lengthen the existing period for elections officials to preserve elections records to facilitate threatened prosecutions, contradicting existing requirements in state and federal law. 

The attorneys general argue that the executive order would require States to upend their existing election administration procedures for upcoming elections and conduct statewide voter education at a dangerously quick pace — in some cases, within weeks of primary elections and mere months before the beginning of vote-by-mail for the general election. The coalition underscores that such drastic and rapid changes will undoubtedly create confusion, chaos, and distrust in state election systems, all while threatening to disenfranchise eligible voters.

President Trump’s first elections-related executive order, Executive Order No. 14248, sought to impose sweeping voting restrictions across the country and prompted a lawsuit last year co-led by Attorney General Bonta and a coalition of 19 attorneys general. The coalition both secured a preliminary injunction in that case, which remains in effect, and defeated President Trump’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit. Two other courts have preliminarily or permanently enjoined key provisions of that order. The Trump Administration has also demanded complete, unredacted voter registration lists from every State, taking legal action against States that refuse to cooperate. On behalf of Secretary of State Weber, Attorney General Bonta secured the dismissal, without leave to amend, of the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit that sought California voters’ sensitive and private information, including social security and driver’s license numbers, partisan affiliation, home addresses and voting history.

Attorney General Bonta is co-leading this lawsuit along with Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown. They are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin, as well as Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement following the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments on President Trump’s unconstitutional attempt to terminate birthright citizenship. 

On his first day in office in 2025, President Trump issued an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented parents or parents who are here on a legal, temporary basis. Attorney General Bonta immediately co-led a coalition in filing a lawsuit challenging the order and repeatedly obtained nationwide preliminary injunctions that blocked this order from ever taking effect. The Supreme Court is now considering the validity of this order in a separate case brought by a class of children who would lose citizenship under the order. Attorney General Bonta co-led another coalition of attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in that case last month.

“Birthright citizenship is foundational to American democracy. It’s the promise that any child born here is equal under American law, regardless of race, class, creed, or parental background. It’s a guarantee that every child born here has a personal stake in the American dream,” said Attorney General Bonta. “It tells you something that President Trump willfully chose to start his second term by trying to knock down this fundamental and longstanding right. Fortunately, I believe he will fail. Every court to date has rejected the President’s unlawful overreach of executive power, and after listening to oral arguments today, I’m optimistic that the Supreme Court will again affirm the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.”