Federal Accountability

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.  

Attorneys general urge the court to uphold First Amendment protections, reject visa revocations and deportations based on political speech

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, as part of a multistate coalition, filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to uphold a district court ruling blocking the Trump Administration’s unlawful policy targeting individuals for visa revocations and removal based on their political speech and activism. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts previously found that the Trump Administration’s policy constituted viewpoint discrimination and violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. In the brief in American Association of University Professors v. Marco Rubio, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the Trump Administration’s “ideological deportation policy” would harm states’ higher education institutions’ academic freedom, threaten states’ economic prosperity, and weaken their position as global leaders in innovation and education if allowed to continue. 

“The Trump Administration’s weaponization of immigration enforcement against students and faculty is designed to chill free speech and civil discourse at college campuses across the country,” said Attorney General Bonta. “A district court has already rejected the Trump Administration’s ideological deportation policy as unlawful, and I urge the First Circuit to do the same. Our nation is built on robust debate and the free exchange of ideas. To send the message that students and faculty must fall in line or face deportation is antithetical our values and to the U.S. Constitution.” 

In the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition assert that the Trump Administration’s unlawful use of ideology to arrest, detain, and deport lawful noncitizen residents threatens the economic growth and stability of the coalition states and their ability to attract diverse talent from around the world, as well as the states’ public health and safety. California has over 880,000 immigrant entrepreneurs, who contribute $24.8 billion in business income, and 28 Fortune 500 companies in California were founded by immigrants and second-generation immigrants. The contributions of immigrant students and faculty go far beyond economics: They enrich academic discourse, strengthen research capabilities, and enhance the global competitiveness of the coalition states. International students studying at California colleges and universities contributed $6.4 billion to the economy and help fund California’s higher education system, which supports all California residents.

Attorney General Bonta and the coalition further argue that the Trump Administration’s ideological deportation policy is a violation of the First Amendment’s right to free speech and carries with it a serious chilling effect on speech and scholarship. The coalition argues that if deemed lawful, the Trump Administration’s weaponization of immigration enforcement would not only undermine the purpose of higher education, but it would also hinder the states’ ability to attract the diverse talent needed to grow and sustain key industries within state and local economies.  

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

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, as part of a multistate coalition, filed an amicus brief yesterday opposing the sharing of personal sensitive taxpayer information by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Last year, the Community Economic Development Center of Southeastern Massachusetts and other organizations sued the Trump Administration for violating privacy protections to share taxpayers’ personal addresses and taxpayer data between IRS and the Department of Homeland Security. In the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the misuse of taxpayer data violates taxpayers’ trust and, as a result, threatens to undermine the state and federal tax collection systems that the states rely on.
 
“The Trump Administration is continuing to weaponize the personal, sensitive data of Californians for immigration enforcement,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We’ve sued to block the misuse of Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF data to feed this unprecedented mass surveillance effort, and we’ll continue to stand up for our residents’ privacy rights in the face of these relentless attacks.”
 
The Trump Administration’s mass deportation campaign has inflicted incalculable human and economic harms on California. This campaign has played out most visibly in images of masked agents swarming city streets, raiding high schools, and arresting children. But it has also involved the Administration’s quiet accumulation of massive data troves. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition have fought to prevent the misuse of Americans’ personal sensitive data, suing to block President Trump’s mass surveillance efforts using Medicaid data, SNAP data, and most recently TANF data, and defending against attempts to obtain access to many of their states’ voter rolls.
 
This effort has also extended to the illegal sharing of sensitive taxpayer information with ICE. Both federal and state governments rely on self-reporting and voluntary compliance with tax laws. Under the U.S. tax system, state and federal governments could not function without residents voluntarily providing highly sensitive private information to tax authorities. To gain trust and ensure compliance, federal and state governments have enshrined in law guarantees that taxpayers’ data will not be misused. The Trump Administration has violated those laws and betrayed that trust.

In the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for First Circuit to uphold a lower court blocking the sharing of IRS data with ICE and ICE from using the data it has already obtained. The coalition argues that the sharing of taxpayer data with ICE:

• Irreparably harms public trust in taxation institutions that rely on voluntary compliance and advertise confidentiality.
• Will cause those already fearful of immigration enforcement to avoid filing federal tax returns, or participating in state tax systems, harming state tax revenues.
• Forces workers into an unregulated economy and workforce where they do not receive employee protections or legal benefits.
• Undermines already established state tax codes that seek to incentivize and provide economic relief through the form of tax deductions and credits.
• Undermines state financial aid systems for students seeking higher education that often rely on their parents filing tax returns.

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Minnesota, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Virginia in filing the amicus brief.
 

Trump Administration is attempting to disclose troves of data about Californians receiving financial assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to DHS and other agencies

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, co-leading a multistate coalition, filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s latest attempt to weaponize sensitive personal information about California families and children. Last month, the Trump Administration issued a Systems of Records Notice (SORN) relating to the administration of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which provides states with billions of dollars each year to keep families out of poverty. The SORN purports to dramatically broaden the federal government’s role in overseeing TANF and authorize the wholesale sharing of TANF recipients’ most sensitive personal information with any federal, state, or private entity it wishes, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the SORN violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Computer Matching Act, and the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and that it should therefore be vacated.
 
“The Trump Administration is exploiting a program designed to ensure children do not go hungry and to help needy families get back on their feet in order to fuel its mass surveillance effort. It’s cruel, unnecessary, and illegal,” said Attorney General Bonta. “While the Trump Administration continues to break the law in order to amass an ever-greater trove of people’s personal information, we’ll continue stepping in to protect the privacy of our people. You have my word.”
 
The TANF program provides states with over $16 billion in grants each year, serving as a crucial component of states’ anti-poverty work and one of the largest sources of cash assistance to low-income American families, including 350,000 families in California each month. In designing the TANF program, Congress gave states substantial flexibility and autonomy, with the aim of eliminating the excessive bureaucracy and overbearing federal oversight that it believed had plagued prior child poverty programs.
 
Despite this, the Trump Administration’s Administration of Children and Families (ACF) asserts that it may share years’ worth of data it has collected — including the Social Security Numbers, marital status, income, and more of past and current TANF recipients — with DHS and other agencies. Nothing in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which established TANF, or any other act supports ACF’s extravagant claims or authority and gross breach of personal privacy.  
 
In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the SORN:

• Is contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority in violation of the APA, particularly PRWORA, which strictly limits federal oversight over TANF.
• Is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA because ACF has given no reasoned explanation for its departure from longstanding agency practice. Furthermore, it is inherently arbitrary for the agency to share information to gain assistance with oversight activity that ACF cannot lawfully perform.
• Violates the Computer Matching Act, which requires an agency to enter into a computer matching agreement when sharing data with another agency.  Here, no such agreement exists between ACF and DHS — or any other recipient agency to which ACF intends to disclose data.
• Violates the Spending Clause by effectively placing a condition on the receipt of TANF funds — a condition of which the states did not have “fair notice” when they accepted those funds.

 
Attorney General Bonta is committed to defending the personal, private data of Californians and pushing back against the President’s attempt to create a mass surveillance database. Attorney General Bonta 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. 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. And Attorney General Bonta recently opposed the Trump Administration’s expansion of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to include the information of U.S.-born citizens who have never interacted with our immigration system and who never consented to the use of their personal data in this manner.
 
Attorney General Bonta leads this lawsuit with New York Attorney General Letitia James and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb. They are 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 Wisconsin, as well as the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

Coalition sues over federal rule that reinstates provisions blocked by a federal court and adds new harmful changes

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 21 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania in filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge a federal rule that once again illegally undermines the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and would make health insurance more expensive and harder to obtain for millions of Americans. The lawsuit seeks to block provisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) 2027 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters, a federal rule that sets standards for health plans offered in 2027 and was opposed by the coalition in a March 2026 comment letter. Among other harmful changes, the rule expands eligibility for catastrophic health insurance plans that are ineligible for premium tax credits, offer only limited coverage, and can leave consumers facing significantly higher out-of-pocket costs than standard ACA plans. The rule also allows catastrophic and bronze plans to exceed ACA limits on maximum annual out-of-pocket costs, increasing the financial burden on consumers, and attempts to reinstate several provisions that a federal court recently found to be unlawful. The coalition argues these and other provisions unlawfully undermine the ACA’s goal of expanding access to affordable healthcare by increasing costs, reducing enrollment, and shifting financial burdens onto consumers, states, and healthcare providers.

“The Affordable Care Act was designed to make healthcare more affordable and accessible. But once again, this Administration is moving in the wrong direction by adopting harmful provisions that push consumers into bare-bones plans and strip away critical protections,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We are returning to court to challenge these unlawful changes. At a time when families are already facing rising costs, they cannot afford to pay more for coverage that gives them less.” 

Congress enacted the ACA to expand access to affordable health insurance, and more than 23 million Americans currently receive coverage through its marketplaces. California has approximately two million ACA plan enrollees, the third highest of any state. Today’s lawsuit follows the coalition’s challenge to the Trump Administration’s similar 2025 ACA Marketplace rule. Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts held a hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in that case, with a final decision expected at a later date. In related litigation, a federal court last month vacated several provisions of the Administration’s 2025 rule — including provisions at issue in this case — after finding that they violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The Administration’s new rule setting standards for 2027 health plans, which is the subject of this lawsuit, brings back many of the same provisions and adds new changes that further undermine the ACA. HHS estimates the new rule will cause two million people to lose coverage in 2027 alone and a total of five million by 2030.

In today’s lawsuit, the coalition argues that the new rule:

• Reimposes provisions that a federal court has already vacated — including additional income verification requirements and penalties for consumers who do not complete tax-credit paperwork — without addressing the court’s legal concerns.
• Unlawfully expands eligibility for catastrophic health plans beyond the limits established by Congress in the ACA.
• Unlawfully allows catastrophic and bronze plans to exceed ACA limits on maximum annual out-of-pocket costs.
• Will increase costs, reduce enrollment, and shift financial burdens onto consumers, healthcare providers, and states.
• Was adopted without adequate explanation or a meaningful response to the coalition’s comments, making it arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In filing today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta co-led the coalition alongside New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport. They were joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

OAKLAND — As part of a coalition of 15 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced an early court victory blocking the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) latest effort to terminate federal funding that helps schools recruit and train mental health professionals and provide essential mental health services to high-need students. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the coalition’s motion for a temporary restraining order, blocking the Department’s unlawful effort to terminate critical mental health grants awarded through the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program and the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program. Congress established these programs to address shortages of school-based counselors, psychologists, social workers, and other mental health professionals, particularly in schools in low-income and rural communities. Earlier this month, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the Department’s renewed effort to end funding for these programs after an earlier attempt was struck down. On the same day it filed the lawsuit, the coalition sought a temporary restraining order, which the court granted last night. 

“The Trump Administration once again targeted critical school mental health funding, and once again, we pushed back. The court’s ruling blocks its unlawful attempt to terminate these grants while our case moves forward,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We will continue fighting the Administration’s illegal actions and ensure schools have fair access to essential mental health services.”

The temporary restraining order, issued after notice and a hearing, will remain in effect through August 24, 2026, while the court considers the coalition’s request for a preliminary injunction. In granting the order, the court concluded that the Department’s termination plan likely violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. The court also denied as moot the Department’s request to clarify that a prior permanent injunction did not prevent the Department from terminating the grants.