Federal Accountability

Eligible voters urged to make their voices heard this November

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 24 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to leave in place a lower court order blocking the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from implementing sweeping changes to mail voting for the fast-approaching November midterm elections. The changes, which were mandated by President Trump’s second elections-related Executive Order, would have required 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. Last week, after first issuing a temporary restraining order, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the coalition’s request for a preliminary injunction, keeping the USPS changes blocked and preserving the existing mail voting process. The Trump Administration appealed, but the First Circuit rejected its request to pause the preliminary injunction. The Trump Administration also sought relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, which has now declined to intervene. 

“After losing in the district and appellate courts, the Trump Administration has now lost at the U.S. Supreme Court. Today’s decision is a victory for our democracy and a powerful affirmation of the rule of law,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The stakes in this litigation could not have been higher. Voting is the fundamental right from which all other rights flow, and all 50 states allow ballots to be cast by mail in some form. In California and several other states, mail voting is the primary way elections are conducted. Had this rule been allowed to take effect, the consequences would have been catastrophic. We will remain vigilant in safeguarding our elections, and we urge every eligible voter to make their voice heard.”

“Today is a good day for democracy, the rule of law, and the American people looking to exercise their Constitutional right to vote. California stood up for democracy and we won," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "Trump’s attacks on democracy these last 20 months have been nothing short of un-American. Finally, fifty days out, and the American people have certainty when it comes to our country’s electoral process: Voting is safe, vote-by-mail is accessible to any and all who need it. And I encourage every Californian to make their voice heard this November.”

"The ruling on mail-in ballots has been made. The uncertainty is behind us. Now, let the people vote! Voters will be able to cast their ballots without uncertainty, without hesitation, and without fear that their voices will be questioned or their ballots rejected," said Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D. "The ability to participate in an election is more than a procedure; it is a symbol of the very freedoms that make our democracy the bedrock of America and an example for the rest of the world. Now, we can finally move forward and get back to what we do best: conducting our elections without a dark cloud hanging over us — fairly, openly, for the people, by the people. No questions asked."

A recent whistleblower report warned of “potentially catastrophic problems” and characterized the Trump Administration’s efforts as “sloppy and rushed.” Further, in a recent court filing, USPS admitted that the technology to implement the rule is not even available. Additionally, election officials across the nation, including chief election officials from states that are not part of the coalition, such as Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah, argued that the USPS rule cannot be responsibly implemented for the November midterm elections. 

The coalition’s legal challenge to the USPS changes began on August 26, with the filing of a lawsuit co-led by Attorney General Bonta, 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, 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 Pennsylvania.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Bonta, as part of a coalition of 25 states, filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Learning Resources v. Trump, a case challenging President Trump’s latest unlawful attempt to tax the states and American consumers through illegal tariffs. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta argues the latest round of tariffs levied under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 are pretextual and are not targeted to address the purported harms of forced labor, as that statute requires, but instead are designed to re-create the tariffs already declared illegal by various courts. Last month, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the Administration’s decision to impose these tariffs on over 80 countries that together account for 99.4% of all U.S. imports — costs that will be passed along to Americans already struggling with affordability.

“President Trump is so intent on raising the cost of living for Americans that he is willing to break law after law to continue his tariff regime,” said Attorney General Bonta. "Imposing these tariffs under Section 301 has nothing to do with forced labor and everything to do with continuing the President’s failed economic policy and reimposing the global tariffs that the Supreme Court invalidated. We urge the Court of International Trade to declare the President’s tariffs under Section 301 illegal. Tariffs are taxes, and the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the President’s illegal tariffs.” 

BACKGROUND

For more than a year, President Trump has inflicted chaos on the American economy by imposing tariffs without the legal authority to do so, including through illegal attempts using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — attempts that were struck down by multiple courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of International Trade. A recent analysis concluded that nearly 90% of the costs of tariffs in 2025 were paid by American consumers and businesses. By imposing another round of price increases on American consumers and businesses, the Trump Administration is tripling down on its failed economic policies.

ABOUT THE BRIEF

In the brief, the states highlight evidence exposing the Trump Administration’s stated rationale for the Section 301 tariffs — the forced-labor import practices of certain countries — as merely a pretext, manufactured to sidestep previous court decisions invalidating the Administration’s prior two attempts to unlawfully impose worldwide tariffs. Forced labor is a serious problem and using human rights issues as a tool for the Trump Administration's own destructive economic agenda is wrong. The coalition argues that because the tariffs are pretextual, they violate the Administrative Procedure Act. As evidence, the coalition points to:

The Administration’s own actions show a determination to institute global tariffs and to find any rationale to impose such tariffs when other avenues failed, including by using Section 301. For example, after the IEEPA tariffs were declared illegal, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) stated the Administration would take action “in short order to ensure continuity” including by imposing the Section 122 tariffs. Recognizing Section 122 tariffs were limited by statute to 150 days, the USTR also promised to initiate investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and to “conduct these investigations on an accelerated time frame.” Other Administration officials confirmed this plan: The same day the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the IEEPA tariffs, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declared that “[t]his Administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs,” including Section 301, “result[ing] in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.” The USTR affirmed that “[b]y the time the five-month period has elapsed, we’ll have completed [the] investigations under Section 301 that Secretary Bessent talked about,” and stated that “the specific authorities this administration is using have changed, but trade strategy has not . . . we are continuing to impose tariffs[.]”

The USTR fast-tracked an investigation into 60 economies at once, without regard to their record on forced labor, in order to re-impose its former tariff regime. The investigation required to impose Section 301 tariffs targeted 60 economies at once, instead of investigating by individual country, and occurred in a very abbreviated 2.5-month timeframe, as opposed to the 12 months or more typical of these inquiries. And USTR’s actual findings under Section 301 do not specify how any country’s forced-labor import practices burden U.S. commerce or explain how global tariffs will eliminate those practices. Further, the USTR identifies no mechanism by which any economy can secure release from the tariffs in exchange for reforms. There are no standards or benchmarks to measure the effectiveness of a country’s new restrictions or improved enforcement. There is no adjustment process, no sunset date, and no plan to revisit these tariffs.

The tariffs’ rate and exemptions track the previous, unlawful tariff regime and were timed to take effect at the exact minute that the prior tariffs expired. The Section 301 tariff rates of 10% and 12.5% largely track the former IEEPA and Section 122 tariffs, which both imposed a baseline 10% tariff on most goods. The Section 301 tariffs also exempt similar goods as the Section 122 tariffs, even when doing so undermines their supposed goal. For example, the Administration’s report on its investigation identified just three products made with forced labor to justify tariffs on dozens of countries. Yet one of these, frozen beef from Brazil, is exempted from the tariffs.

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joined the attorneys general of Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the Governors of Pennsylvania and Kentucky.

Dramatic expansion of who is considered a “public charge” would force millions to choose between protecting their pathway to citizenship and access to healthcare or food assistance for themselves and their families 

SAN FRANCISCO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, co-leading a multistate coalition, sued to block the Trump Administration’s new rule dramatically expanding the ability of immigration officials to use participation in public benefits programs as grounds to deny lawful permanent residency. Historically, the public charge ground of inadmissibility has been a narrow provision that excluded only those immigrants who were expected to become primarily dependent on federal programs for their subsistence. In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the Trump Administration’s rewrite of more than a century of settled immigration law exceeds its statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and should be vacated.

“No family should have to choose between accessing healthcare and nutrition assistance today — or protecting their pathway to a green card tomorrow,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration is seeking to rewrite more than 100 years of law with its expansive new definition of who is considered a ‘public charge.’ In doing so, it is providing individual immigration officers with the discretion and power to punish families for lawfully accessing certain public benefits programs during short-term periods of need. This Administration’s cruelty continues to know no bounds. We’re going to court on behalf of the millions of immigrants who call this state home — and we will fight to get this unlawful rule undone.” 

For more than 140 years, the term “public charge” has been understood by states, Congress, courts, and federal agencies to mean an individual who has become, or is likely to become, primarily dependent on the government for long-term subsistence. Under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a noncitizen who is likely to become a public charge is generally inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to become a lawful permanent resident. 

In 2019, the Trump Administration sought to radically expand this definition to include the use of healthcare through federally-funded Medicaid, nutrition and food support through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Section 8 housing assistance. That rule was successfully challenged by California and other states and later reversed by the Biden Administration and restored to its original meaning. Now, the Trump Administration is trying again, reversing Biden-Era corrective guidance and eviscerating existing regulations that place guardrails on immigration officers' discretion in making public charge determinations. 

Under the new final rule, immigration officers will have unprecedented, sweeping new discretion to deny admission, and to block pathways to lawful permanent residency, based on participation in public programs — programs that Congress or the states expressly chose to allow noncitizens or their U.S.-citizen family members to participate in. These officers will now be able to rely on any public benefits use for any period of time — and, really, any information at all — in making a public charge inadmissibility determination. For example, immigration agents are now empowered to count U.S. citizen household members’ lawful use of individual benefits, such as a U.S. citizen child’s use of state-provided health insurance, against a noncitizen parent who has been following all the rules.

In a lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the final rule and its implementing guidance exceed the Trump Administration’s statutory authority and are arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the APA. The final rule is inconsistent with the settled meaning — or any other reasonable interpretation — of the INA’s public charge provision. The Trump Administration also failed to engage in the reasoned decision-making process required by the APA, brushing aside the harmful consequences of the regime it sets forth, while relying on legally erroneous justifications. As a result, without court intervention, families across California will be forced to forgo their legal access to essential benefits such as preventive healthcare and nutritional assistance, and in turn, public health, local economies, public education, and public safety will suffer.  

Attorney General Bonta is committed to protecting and defending the rights of California's immigrant communities. He previously issued guidance to help California immigrants better understand their rights and protections under the law and avoid immigration scams. You can find more on the California Department of Justice’s work to protect California immigrants at oag.ca.gov/immigrant.

In filing today's lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul lead the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the governor of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit was filed alongside a coalition of cities and counties, including the City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the County of Santa Clara late yesterday secured a preliminary injunction blocking the illegal construction of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County near Gilroy, California. In June 2026, Attorney General Bonta and the County of Santa Clara filed a lawsuit challenging the construction of this facility, which the federal government pursued without required environmental review or consultation with state and local governments. ICE subsequently agreed to pause construction until September 9, 2026. Yesterday’s order by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California continues to halt construction and asks the parties to meet and confer and submit a proposed order by September 30, 2026 on the scope of the injunction.

"No one is above the law — not even the federal government," said Attorney General Rob Bonta. "The Trump Administration tried to rush construction of this facility in secret, ignoring environmental safeguards and shutting out the communities that would bear the consequences. This ruling sends a clear message: California will hold the federal government accountable and protect our communities, our environment, and the rule of law.”

“We’re hopeful the court’s ruling sends a clear message that this is the wrong process and the wrong place for this facility,” said County Counsel Tony LoPresti.  “The federal government’s legal violations concealed fundamental flaws with this project — you can’t plop a facility like this onto sensitive land that lacks basic infrastructure to support the detention of individuals.  We’re proud to stand with Attorney General Bonta in fighting this battle, and we’re honored to support an immigrant community that has been under constant assault by an Administration that is all too willing to proceed without regard for the law.”

BACKGROUND 

In January 2025, the federal government leased a 24.5-acre parcel of unincorporated land near Gilroy, California from a private developer for use by ICE as a likely Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) holding facility. From there, the federal government moved to build out the site rapidly and without transparency — bypassing required environmental review and failing to consult with state or local governments at any point. The construction of the facility threatens to cause the release of hazardous materials and disrupt the ecosystem, habitat, and agricultural value of land that the county and the state have protected for exclusively agricultural uses since the 1960s. The project is also likely to have severe impacts on vital infrastructure, overwhelming a septic system designed for much smaller use.  

Attorney General Bonta and the County of Santa Clara filed a lawsuit and a motion for a preliminary injunction in June 2026, arguing that the development of this facility violates the National Environmental Policy Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and California’s Williamson Act. Yesterday’s decision on the motion for a preliminary injunction finds Attorney General Bonta and the County of Santa Clara are likely to succeed in the litigation and halts construction of the facility pending further instruction by the court. 

Settlement ensures funding will flow without interruption for FY26-27 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, co-leading a coalition of 23 attorneys general and two governors, announced a settlement that stops the Trump Administration from again attempting to dismantle AmeriCorps without warning. AmeriCorps is an independent federal agency tasked with engaging Americans in meaningful community-based service that directly addresses the country’s educational, public safety, and environmental needs. Organizations rely on support from AmeriCorps to recruit, place, and supervise AmeriCorps members nationwide. The settlement resolves a multistate lawsuit brought in response to the Trump Administration’s repeated attempts to gut AmeriCorps. Previously, as a result of the lawsuit, the Trump Administration was forced to reinstate nearly $400 million in terminated AmeriCorps programs and agreed to release over $184 million in funds to service programs in California and across the country. This settlement ensures these protections continue through Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-2027.  

“AmeriCorps volunteers represent the best of who we are as a country,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today’s settlement ensures AmeriCorps volunteers and the communities they serve have certainty that these vital volunteer programs will continue without disruption in the upcoming service year, extending the relief we previously secured in court. I’m proud to have worked with states across the nation in protecting this vital service program.”  

As part of the settlement, the Trump Administration commits to obligate all FY 2026-2027 congressionally allocated AmeriCorps funds by September 30, 2026. The Trump Administration further stipulates that AmeriCorps has no intention of engaging in mass layoffs or program terminations for FY 2026-2027, and is required to notify the coalition with at least 30 days’ notice if it intends to undertake any mass terminations of AmeriCorps staff or volunteer programs to give the coalition the opportunity to challenge any such actions. 

The settlement pauses the litigation through February 1, 2027, at which point the coalition will voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice, provided AmeriCorps has complied with its commitments. Should the coalition determine that AmeriCorps has not complied, it may move the court to lift the stay and resume litigation. The coalition also retains the right to challenge other unlawful conduct by AmeriCorps, whether through an amended complaint during the stay or a new action during or after the stay. 

Attorney General Bonta and the coalition filed its lawsuit in April 2025, after the Trump Administration moved to eliminate nearly 90% of AmeriCorps’ workforce, cancel its contracts, and close $400 million worth of AmeriCorps-supported programs. In June 2025, a federal court granted the coalition’s motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the administration to reinstate programs that had been unlawfully canceled. Then in August 2025, following a further motion for a preliminary injunction by the coalition, the federal Office of Management and Budget agreed to release more than $184 million in AmeriCorps funding it had withheld.

Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Maryland, Colorado, Delaware, Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, in filing the settlement. 

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 24 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured another victory for voters after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the Trump Administration’s request to stay, or pause, a recent federal court order blocking drastic, unprecedented, and unlawful changes to mail voting adopted by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). The changes, 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. Last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the coalition’s request for a preliminary injunction, after previously granting a temporary restraining order. The preliminary injunction blocks the USPS changes through the fast-approaching November midterm elections. The Trump Administration appealed the decision and asked the First Circuit to let the changes take effect. Today, the First Circuit denied that request.

“The First Circuit has once again rejected the Trump Administration’s latest attempt to disrupt mail voting,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The changes at issue could disenfranchise millions of voters, especially given how little time there is to implement them. As a reminder, President Trump has repeatedly voted by mail himself — he doesn’t get to decide that mail voting is good enough for him, but not for other Americans.”

“The rule of law continues to slap down Trump’s dangerous and un-American attacks on our democracy,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “California will never stop fighting for democracy and people’s ability to exercise their constitutional right to vote.” 

“This decision was the right one. Attacks on mail voting have the potential to disenfranchise millions of eligible voters, violate citizens’ constitutional right to vote, and undercut our democracy,” said Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D. “California and its leaders will continue to protect voters' rights and their ability to participate in free and fair elections.”

The First Circuit’s decision comes as serious concerns grow about USPS’s ability to implement the changes on a short timeline. A recent whistleblower report 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. In a recent court filing, USPS also admitted that the technology to implement the rule is not even available. In addition, election officials across the nation, including chief election officials from states that are not part of the coalition, such as Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah, have argued that the USPS rule cannot be responsibly implemented for the November midterm elections.

The coalition’s legal challenge to the USPS changes began on August 26, with the filing of a lawsuit co-led by Attorney General Bonta, 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, 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 filed an amicus brief in support of litigation challenging Immigration and Custom Enforcement's (ICE) unlawful policy and practice of warrantless civil immigration arrests without probable cause. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta, co-leading a multistate coalition, highlights the harms of the Trump Administration’s mass deportation campaign, an integral part of which is unlawful warrantless arrests. The consequences of these actions reverberate far beyond the individuals seized: Families are destabilized, workplaces disrupted, schools strained, local economies unsettled, and essential state and local services — including healthcare, education, and public safety — are hindered. 

“The Trump Administration has sought to instill fear in immigrant communities through indiscriminate, sweeping, and often baseless immigration arrests,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This violates the law — and basic human decency. In California, we’ve seen firsthand the devastation wrought by the Trump Administration’s destructive mass deportation agenda. We will always stand up for the rights of our immigrant communities and communities across the country.” 

California has experienced the harms of ICE’s aggressive and unlawful immigration enforcement practices, including declines in school attendance, farm operations, public health, economic security, and public trust between communities and state and local law enforcement.  

On January 7, 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Border Patrol began a large-scale raid called “Operation Return to Sender” in Kern County, which resulted in the arrest of 78 people for allegedly not having lawful immigration status. During the operation, Border Patrol carried out arbitrary roving patrols and warrantless arrests throughout the predominantly Latino areas of Kern County and surrounding areas. Impacts from these raids reverberated throughout the community, with school attendance dropping and people too fearful to go to work. Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of litigation brought by United Farmworkers and a class of individuals concerning DHS’s practices during this operation.  

In June of 2025, DHS began another operation, “Operation at Large,” in Los Angeles, similarly sweeping through city streets and carrying out suspicionless stops and warrantless arrests. These raids, too, deeply affected the community — business districts turned to ghost towns, community events like fireworks shows and graduation ceremonies were cancelled, and local law enforcement contended with the confusion caused by DHS’s aggressive tactics and the fear it stoked in the public. Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in support of a temporary restraining order to stop ICE and CBP from engaging in unconstitutional stops during Operation at Large.

In today’s brief, Attorney General Bonta continues his support for challenges to DHS’s aggressive tactics, co-leading a multistate coalition in urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to uphold the lower court’s order prohibiting ICE from conducting civil immigration arrests in Colorado without a warrant if the ICE officer does not have probable cause that the individual is both violating the law and that the individual is an escape risk, as is required by the Immigration and Nationality Act and federal regulations. The coalition argues Congress has placed clear limits on immigration agents’ authority to make warrantless arrests, requiring individualized probable cause of both removability and a likelihood of escape. ICE has repeatedly ignored these limits, resulting in unlawful arrests, improper detentions, and chaotic enforcement practices across the country. The coalition also highlights the harms resulting from these enforcement practices, which undermine the public safety, education, health and economy of their residents.  

Attorney General Bonta has fought back against the Trump Administration’s unlawful militarized immigration enforcement and defended public safety. In addition to amicus briefs challenging DHS’s unlawful stops and arrests practices in Kern County and Los Angeles, earlier this year, Attorney General Bonta led an amicus brief in support of Minnesota’s lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s extraordinary campaign of lawlessness during its deployment of federal agents to the Twin Cities area of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom also secured a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ending the continued federalization and deployment of California National Guard troops in and around Los Angeles. 

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

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the due process rights of immigrant detainees who are subject to prolonged confinement without a bond hearing. In Genalo v. GM, the respondent is a legal permanent resident who was detained for 21 months, without a bond hearing, pending resolution of his immigration court proceedings. GM has argued that his prolonged detention, without any individualized assessment, violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process, and the Second Circuit agreed. In today’s brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the Supreme Court to uphold the due process rights of individuals like GM and ensure that noncitizen residents who do not pose a danger to society or risk of flight are not subject to unreasonably prolonged civil immigration detention while they defend themselves in removal proceedings. 

“California is home to more than 10 million immigrants who are hardworking contributors to our communities and our economy,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The senseless detention — for months on end — of many of these immigrants when they could be released on bond is cruel and unconstitutional. My team has seen firsthand the unacceptable conditions at these facilities. I urge the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the due process rights of these individuals and put an end to the unnecessary and prolonged mass detention of these individuals while they await the outcome of their cases.”  

In today’s brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the Supreme Court to uphold the Second Circuit’s decision, which found that individuals who are deprived of their liberty for unreasonably prolonged periods must be afforded an individualized bond hearing to determine whether continued detention is justified — and that, in such circumstances, the government must demonstrate the need for continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. The coalition highlights: 

• Based on Attorneys Generals' consistent experience across many forms of state-law civil detention and pretrial detention, the government must ordinarily prove the need for such detention, particularly when it is unreasonably prolonged. This consistent state practice is a strong indicator of what is workable and satisfies due process.
• When prolonged detention pending removal proceedings is not necessary to protect the public or ensure a noncitizen’s appearance at future proceedings, such detention unnecessarily and irreparably harms noncitizens, their families, their communities, and their states, which are deprived of their many personal and financial contributions. 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to standing up for California’s immigrant communities and shining a light on the unacceptable conditions at immigration detention facilities across the state. Attorney General Bonta has filed multiple amicus briefs in support of challenges to the Trump Administration’s no-bond policy, which mandates the indefinite detention of vast numbers of other noncitizens, also without the opportunity for a bond hearing. 

Earlier this year, Attorney General Bonta released the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) fifth report on conditions at immigration detention facilities operating in California. During inspections conducted at the seven immigration detention facilities operating in California last year, DOJ found that conditions had largely worsened as the Trump Administration’s mass deportation campaign has led to overcrowded intake conditions and strained resources, especially around access to medical care and basic food, water, and hygienic needs.

In addition to reporting on DOJ’s findings around conditions at California’s immigration detention facilities, Attorney General Bonta has filed amicus briefs opposing the conditions of confinement at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, sent a letter to the DHS shining a light on dangerous conditions at the California City Detention Facility, and raised serious concerns with an ICE directive to stop investigating and reporting on the deaths of individuals who die within 30 days after being released from ICE custody.

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

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.