Federal Accountability

SACRAMENTO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today marked his 100th lawsuit against the Trump Administration since it began on January 20, 2025, just 21 months ago. This regrettable milestone comes as the President continues to break our laws with a frequency and intensity surpassing even the lawlessness that characterized his first term in office. Within hours of being sworn into office, President Trump attempted to rewrite the Constitution by issuing an illegal executive order that sought to end the birthright citizenship promised under the Fourteenth Amendment. Attorney General Bonta filed California’s first lawsuit against the President less than 24 hours later and took this fight all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court — and won. In the following months, Attorney General Bonta has returned to court to stop the President’s unlawful federal funding cuts for education, research, housing, healthcare, and infrastructure; get the National Guard off our streets; and defend constitutional rights like the right to vote. All of these actions clearly exceeded the President’s authority and ignored the basic constitutional framework our founders crafted with care and precision. Attorney General Bonta's 100th lawsuit, filed today, once again challenges the Trump Administration’s undermining of the rule of law and trampling over longstanding principles of justice — seeking to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) policy and practice of carrying out civil immigration enforcement in and around state courthouses.

“For the 100th time since President Trump returned to office, we’re going to court. This is a sobering milestone — and a testament to the unrelenting ferociousness with which the President is willing to steamroll over the law, our Constitution, and the fundamental values of our government,” said Attorney General Bonta. “In California, we’ve been repeated targets of this Administration. He’s gone after our funding, taken over our streets, and systematically made our communities less safe. These 100 lawsuits are a symptom, a reflection of what we’re collectively up against. The President’s epidemic of lawbreaking is the disease. No one should look at these 100 cases and think this is normal. No one should look at these 100 cases and think we want to be here today. This isn’t a fight we chose. But when the President breaks the law and goes after our state, we’ll meet him in court, each and every time." 

Since January 20, 2025, President Trump and his Administration have pursued policies that have made Americans’ lives worse, not better, breaking the law 100 times in the process: 

Making Your Life Unaffordable 

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.

At the same time, the Trump Administration attempted to starve the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of its lawful funding, threatening catastrophic harm to hardworking families and consumer financial markets nationwide. The court rejected this move after state attorneys general took it to court, ensuring it can continue its work to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts by big corporations.

Undermining Civil Rights and Privacy

The Trump Administration has sought to accumulate and leverage massive troves of Americans’ personal sensitive data, attempting to illegally seize California’s voter rolls, Medicaid data, SNAP data, TANF data, and commercial drivers’ license data for purposes unrelated to their original intent like immigration enforcement and for purposes, concerningly, still unclear. California will not let programs designed to ensure children do not go hungry and to help needy families get back on their feet be exploited to fuel mass surveillance efforts.

The Trump Administration has sought to use federal funding as a bludgeon to compel states to adopt its hateful and ideological agenda — seeking to condition funding for school lunches, SNAP, and other programs that provide a critical lifeline to vulnerable communities on states’ adoption of its policy preferences around immigration, gender ideology, transgender athletes, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

Making Our Communities Less Safe

While President Trump claimed he’d go after the worst of the worst, instead, he’s advanced policies that would have made our communities less safe, not more. Since taking office, the Trump Administration has tried to shut down a program that helps communities prepare for and mitigate the risks from disasters in advance, reallocate funding California uses to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism based on our adoption of policies the Trump Administration does not like; and impose illegal immigration enforcement conditions on emergency preparedness and crime victims grants.

Last year, Attorney General Bonta, alongside Governor Gavin Newsom, filed a lawsuit challenging the President’s unlawful deployment of California National Guard troops, securing multiple court orders blocking their federalization and deployment to Los Angeles and Portland, and finding violations of the Posse Comitatus Act. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in a related case, Illinois v. Trump, rejecting the Trump Administration’s nearly limitless conception of presidential authority to federalize the National Guard and the activities those troops can engage in, the Trump Administration officially withdrew the remaining troops in California and ended their deployment. 

Attacking the Right to Vote

President Trump has been relentless in his attempts to restrict the right to vote, sow distrust in the integrity of our elections, and interfere with states’ constitutional authority to administer elections. Attorney General Bonta repeatedly stopped these efforts in their tracks — ensuring that November’s elections are business as usual in California.  

Taking Funding Away from Our Schools and Kids

The Trump Administration has tried to stop $4.9 billion in federal education funding from flowing to California not one, not two, but three times. California has met them in court each time — ensuring the Trump Administration’s reckless actions don’t impact the educational futures of our children. 

In his first month in office, President Trump also sought to pump the brakes on cutting-edge medical and public health research at universities and research institutions across the state and country — cuts that were stopped, permanently, through multistate litigation.

Rolling Back Energy and Environmental Progress 

The President has spent the past 21 months writing a love letter to his fossil fuel friends — at the cost of California’s environment, public health, and clean energy future. He’s wasted taxpayer money on unnecessary and unlawful buyouts of offshore wind projects. He’s refused to implement lifesaving standards for fine particulate matter — commonly known as “soot.” And he’s tried to roll back California’s decades-old authority to set vehicle emissions standards more stringent than the federal government’s. 

Ripping Away Healthcare and Social Services

As a society, we are judged by how we treat our neighbors in need. President Trump doesn’t like California’s policies — and he’s tried to punish us for them. The Trump Administration sought to freeze $5 billion in funding for childcare and family assistance programs in California, putting at risk the ability of working parents to stay in their jobs and support their families. It refused to pay out SNAP benefits last November — appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court — despite multiple courts telling the Administration it could, and in fact, should, and tried to punish states for taking steps to fund these benefits. 

Targeting California’s Immigrant Communities

The President has embarked on an indiscriminate and inhuman mass detention and deportation campaign — instilling fear in California communities as ICE targets not criminals, but lawful U.S. citizens, green card holders, asylum seekers, and other hardworking contributors to our communities and economy. California has declined to use our limited resources for federal immigration enforcement, a decision that has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit. Despite this, the President has repeatedly attempted to condition transportation, crime victims, emergency services, and homeland security funding on California’s participation in immigration enforcement. These attempts have been resoundingly rejected by the courts.

…Through it All, California is Standing Strong

In just under 21 months, Attorney General Bonta has filed 100 lawsuits on behalf of California, leading or co-leading 67 of them, and separately filed more than 130 amicus briefs in support of other litigation against the Trump Administration. In this period, Attorney General Bonta has secured 57 orders granting early relief, 26 final orders, and in an additional nine cases, the Trump Administration has backed down before the case was heard on the merits. Attorney General Bonta has also celebrated major wins at the U.S. Supreme Court, protecting the right to vote and the right to birthright citizenship, defending California’s redistricting efforts, getting the National Guard off of California’s streets, and blocking the President’s illegal tariffs.

You can find more on the California Department of Justice’s federal accountability work at oag.ca.gov/federal-accountability-dashboard.

SACRAMENTO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s policy and practice of carrying out civil immigration enforcement in and around state courthouses. Since the Trump Administration began authorizing and encouraging these arrests in May 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers have carried out disruptive, often violent civil immigration enforcement actions at courthouses across California, without regard for the impacts on the administration of justice. Witnesses, victims, survivors of domestic violence, and others who might wish to seek redress through the state’s judicial system understandably fear that courthouses are no longer safe places to appear. ICE’s directive on courthouse enforcement and the resulting enforcement activities have had a profound chilling effect that has hindered California’s ability to enforce the law and protect public safety. In the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Attorney General Bonta asserts that these immigration arrests, and the directive authorizing them, are arbitrary and capricious, exceed the agency’s enforcement authority, and violate the U.S. Constitution. 

“The Trump Administration has systematically made our communities less safe with its insidious and unlawful enforcement actions in and around California courthouses,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We’ve seen serious criminal charges dropped and entire cases jeopardized because victims and witnesses are too scared to come to the courthouse to testify. Our justice system cannot function this way. There is good reason that the common law, dating back centuries, bars civil arrests at courthouses. I’m deeply troubled that, today, we're going to court for the 100th time in less than two years to enforce the law. This is a sobering milestone. Our state’s courts should be where justice is served — not disrupted or denied.” 

Since ICE changed its policy in late May 2025, immigration enforcement in and around California state courthouses has spiked. In the year that followed the policy change, the average monthly number of ICE arrests in and around California courthouses increased by more than 550% compared to prior months, with immigration enforcement actions occurring across the state, from the largest urban centers, like Los Angeles and San Diego, to rural courthouses in Shasta, Butte, and Glenn Counties. Although ICE’s directive was vacated in late June 2026 in Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, ICE’s enforcement actions at California’s courts did not stop. In June 2026, when more robust data collection began, there were 34 enforcement incidents reported at superior courts statewide, resulting in 30 civil arrests. In July, after ICE’s directive was vacated, there were 28 reported incidents, resulting in 28 civil arrests. These types of enforcement actions at California’s courts continued throughout the summer and into the fall. 

ICE’s enforcement actions at courthouses are conducted unannounced, often by unidentified, plain-clothed officers. These officers have apprehended court attendees in hallways, lobbies, and parking lots of the state’s courthouses. Sometimes they follow their target from the courtroom; other times they apprehend the individual before they reach the courtroom. They have also been reported to wait in the court parking lot in certain counties for days on end, seeking to apprehend individuals who are coming to or from the courthouse. Notably, ICE’s most recent written courthouse enforcement directive does not limit who is subject to arrest — it can be anyone from a criminal defendant to a victim to individuals merely present to conduct civic business or accompany a family member. These enforcement actions have caused substantial harm, including by stymying criminal prosecutions, impeding California’s ability to provide access to justice, and disrupting court operations.  

In today’s lawsuit filed against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE, Attorney General Bonta argues that ICE’s directive authorizing widespread immigration enforcement at courthouses is:

• Arbitrary and Capricious in Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA): ICE failed to consider the chilling effect on access to justice and the overall functioning of state judicial systems resulting from its directive. ICE in its most recent written directive also failed to acknowledge or provide a reasoned explanation for removing an earlier restriction that barred courthouse enforcement in jurisdictions where it was prohibited.
• In Excess of Statutory Authority in Violation of the APA: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was enacted against the backdrop of the centuries-old common law privilege that precluded civil arrests at courthouses. Congress is understood to have incorporated that privilege into the INA and thereby withheld authority for immigration officers to make civil arrests at courthouses.
• Contrary to Constitutional Right, Power, Privilege, or Immunity in Violation of the APA: The states’ judicial and police powers are powers that the U.S. Constitution reserves to the states under the Tenth Amendment. ICE’s actions interfere with California’s execution of its core sovereign judicial and police functions by infringing on California’s ability to maintain and operate a judicial system, prosecute crimes, and carry out related police powers. 
• In Violation of the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: ICE’s directive and its courthouse enforcement infringe on California’s sovereign powers and interfere with the execution of its sovereign duties. 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to holding ICE accountable and standing up for California’s immigrant communities. Earlier this year, Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit seeking to block the illegal development of an ICE facility in unincorporated Santa Clara County near Gilroy, California. 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.

In May, Attorney General Bonta released the California Department of Justice’s 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 the DHS shining a light on dangerous conditions at the recently reopened California City Detention Facility.

SAN BRUNO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit challenging the National Archives and Records Administration’s (NARA) abrupt decision to close the National Archives at San Francisco and transfer its holdings to other National Archives facilities across the country. The San Francisco National Archives holds records that tell the story of Northern and Central California’s history, with records dating back more than 175 years. These records are invaluable to the State, universities and researchers, families, Tribes, and individuals who come to the facility to connect with their ancestors, culture, and broader community. In the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Attorney General Bonta argues that the decision to close this facility, without regard for those who rely on it, violates the Administrative Procedure Act and should be blocked. 

“California won’t stand idly by while the Trump Administration hauls away records that tell the stories of generations of immigrants, Tribal communities, and California families,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The San Francisco National Archives holds records going back to 1850, when California was just becoming a state. These records tell the story of injustice, of some of the painful chapters of our nation’s history, and the people and communities who lived through them and fought for their rights. These records belong here, and I’ll fight to keep them here. The Trump Administration won’t get away with cutting corners and putting up barriers between Californians and our history.”

Located in San Bruno, the San Francisco National Archives holds over 75,000 cubic feet of records from federal agencies in Northern and Central California, Hawaii, most of Nevada, Guam, and American Samoa. Its holdings include immigration, court, inmate, and genealogical records, including Indian boarding school records and immigration case files from the Chinese Exclusion Act era. The San Francisco Archives also houses case records related to Japanese-American internment, including those from the famous case of Fred Korematsu, who sued the United States to challenge his arrest for refusing to report for internment during World War II. 

In June 2026, an email was sent to employees at the San Francisco Archives stating that NARA planned to close the San Francisco Archives, along with the Chicago Archives, in the next few years, and it would start moving records “within the next few months.” In August 2026, NARA announced on its website that, before the facility’s closure, the San Francisco Archives records would be transferred to five different National Archives facilities around the United States. That transfer could begin as soon as this week, with planned transfers of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) records to the National Archives facility in Fort Worth. 

Multiple California agencies rely on records at the National Archives to conduct legally required research for state construction projects. For example, California State Parks and its contractors visited the San Francisco Archives over ten times during the refurbishment of the Angel Island barracks to research the circumstances surrounding the original construction of the facility. This research was essential to comply with state and local environmental laws and regulations. Pending State Parks projects on Angel Island and other locations will be impossible to complete if the records at the San Bruno facility are unavailable for any period of time and cost prohibitive if travel is required out of state. Researchers and professors from the University of California also rely on physical access to records at the San Bruno facility for their research and classwork. For example, Professor Andrew Leong of the University of California, Berkeley regularly sends his students to the National Archives to research Asian American history and language, accessing archival material only available in person and on site. 

In the lawsuit, Attorney Generals Bonta argues that the closure of the San Francisco Archives and the transfer of records from this facility is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. To act unilaterally and without regard for the State, tribes, and other stakeholders is contrary to NARA’s mission to preserve public access to the Nation’s historical records. Moving records out of their communities of relevance places them out of reach for those who need the records the most. Less than 4% of records at National Archives nationwide are digitized. Some records are too delicate and fragile to digitize at all because of their age or composition, and to digitize them risks damaging or destroying them in the process. To prevent these harms, Attorney General Bonta seeks a court order vacating the decision to close the National Archives at San Francisco and prohibiting the transfer of records from this facility. 

Here is a copy of the lawsuit.

OAKLAND — With just three weeks until the Tuesday, November 3, 2026, General Election, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today held a press conference in Los Angeles to reaffirm the safety and security of mail voting and urge voters who choose to mail their ballots to send them at least one week before Election Day to allow time for postmarking and delivery. He also highlighted the California Department of Justice’s publication on voting rights for people with disabilities and underscored that the deadline for Californians to register to vote online is fast approaching. Eligible Californians have until next Monday, October 19 to register to vote at registertovote.ca.gov, or if after the deadline, register in-person through Same Day Voter Registration (Conditional Voter Registration). Attorney General Bonta held a press conference last week in Sacramento as part of his efforts to help voters understand their rights and know key election deadlines. 

“Election season is upon us, and with just three weeks until Election Day, now is the time to make a plan to vote,” said Attorney General Bonta. “In California, every active, registered voter receives a ballot in the mail, and thanks to a major Supreme Court victory we recently secured, Californians can continue voting just as they have before – whether by mail, ballot drop box, early, or in-person on Election Day. Your voice matters — don’t miss your chance to use it!”

The Attorney General enforces California’s election laws to ensure free and fair elections. In the lead-up to and on Election Day, the California Department of Justice will be on call to assist the Secretary of State’s Office in enforcing California’s election laws through a team of attorneys and administrative staff located across the state. For up-to-date information on how to vote, check official websites, including sos.ca.gov/elections. Voters can register to track their ballot and confirm that it is counted at wheresmyballot.sos.ca.gov.

Denial of voting rights can be reported in English through the Secretary of State’s confidential toll-free Voter Hotline at (800) 345-VOTE (8683). Other language options, including Spanish, Tagalog, and Chinese, are available. In addition, reports can be made via email at elections@sos.ca.gov.  

Recent Court Victories Protecting Voting Rights

Attorney General Bonta has recently secured several court victories protecting Californians’ access to the ballot and the administration of elections:

1. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Trump Administration from imposing new mail-voting requirements ahead of the November 2026 election.
2. Last month, the California Supreme Court ordered the return of approximately 650,000 voted ballots unlawfully seized by Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and affirmed the Attorney General’s authority to supervise county sheriffs.
3. In August, a California appellate court upheld a preliminary injunction blocking Shasta County’s Measure B, which would have eliminated vote-by-mail and most early voting and imposed new voter registration and identification requirements.

Considering Mailing Your Ballot? Here’s What You Need to Know

To be counted, a ballot returned by mail must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by the voter’s county elections office no later than seven days after Election Day. In the June 2026 primary, 148,241 mail ballots were rejected statewide. Nearly two-thirds were rejected because they were postmarked after Election Day or received by county elections offices after the seven-day deadline.

Voters can reduce the risk of deadline-related rejections by taking the following steps:

• Mail your ballot early. If mailing your ballot, aim to send it at least one week before Election Day.
• Request a postmark. If mailing your ballot close to Election Day, visit the post office counter to have it postmarked.
• Remember, you have other options. If you’re cutting it close, drop off your completed mail ballot at a vote center or ballot drop box. Ballot drop-off boxes are open and will remain available through Election Day. To find a ballot drop box near you, visit caearlyvoting.sos.ca.gov.

Supporting Voters with Disabilities 

The California Department of Justice’s publication, “Access to Voting for People with Disabilities,” includes information about federal and state laws that protect voters with disabilities. For example: 

• The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires that election officials allow voters to receive assistance from a person of the voter’s choice if the voter is blind or has another disability that requires assistance.
• The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires voting facilities to have accessible voting systems, parking, and routes to the entrance.
• California’s Voter’s Choice Act requires that vote centers comply with federal accessibility requirements and be equipped with voting units or systems that are accessible to voters with disabilities.
• California Government Code section 11135 prohibits disability-based discrimination in programs and activities that are conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, are funded directly by the state, or receive any financial assistance from the state. A violation of the ADA is also a violation of section 11135.

If a person believes that they or someone else was discriminated against based on a disability while registering to vote or voting, they may file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led a coalition of 17 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing the Trump Administration’s proposed rule to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) and the accompanying draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If adopted, the United States Forest Service’s (USFS) proposal would remove vital forest protections and open nearly 45 million acres of national forest lands to road construction, timber harvesting, mining, and oil and gas development in some of the last protected stretches of forests nationwide. The proposed rule, which follows USFS’s notice of intent to propose the changes last year, is the latest chapter in the Trump Administration’s efforts to reduce protections for National Forests, including the Roadless Rule. In the letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the proposed rule and draft EIS do not meet the legal requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and National Forest Management Act and would fragment vulnerable ecosystems, jeopardize clean water sources, threaten plant and wildlife habitat, and undermine efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change. 

“Our Golden State is home to some of the most pristine and diverse ecosystems in the nation. We will not stand by and allow the federal government to subject our National Forests to commercial exploitation,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Time and time again, the Trump Administration has demonstrated a willingness to devastate our environment and public lands for the sake of short-term economic gain. But the evidence is clear: roadbuilding and logging increase risks of wildfire, destroy habitat, and disrupt clean water resources. California greatly cares about protecting our forests and ensuring they are preserved for future generations. We are strongly urging this Administration to abandon its course of action.” 

"This reckless proposal threatens millions of acres of our public lands," said California Secretary for Natural Resources Wade Crowfoot. "For 25 years, the Roadless Rule has helped protect California's clean water, wildlife habitat, recreational backcountry, and some of our most treasured public lands. Repealing it would put those protections at risk when we need them most."

The Roadless Rule was established in 2001 to prohibit road construction, reconstruction, and commercial logging in designated “roadless areas” of National Forests to preserve their ecological integrity, shield wildlife habitat, protect watersheds, and maintain opportunities for recreation. Among the primary nationwide drivers of the Roadless Rule were the desire to prevent further fragmentation of the few remaining roadless areas, and the concern that case-by-case local decisions would comprehensively and cumulatively have a large impact on biodiversity by increasing habitat fragmentation.

In June 2025, in response to President Trump’s Executive Order 14225, “Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production,” the USFS announced its intent to rescind this rule. The proposed rule changes would open 4.4 million acres of National Forests in California to potential new roadbuilding, road reconstruction and logging, as well as other industrial uses such as mining, oil, and gas development. This would affect sensitive waterways, recreational areas, and wildlife habitat in all 20 National Forests in California with significant roadless areas. 

In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the USFS to rescind its proposal, and assert that, among other things: 

• The proposed rule is contrary to the National Forest Management Act of 1976 and the APA, as it would change land and resource management plans within each National Forest without undergoing the required plan amendment or revision process. 
• The proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the APA because the agency fails to justify its change in policy, does not provide a reasoned basis for rescinding the prohibitions of road construction and reconstruction, and fails to make the necessary connection between the rescission of the Roadless Rule and the need for increased wildfire management.
• The proposed rule fails to address legitimate reliance interests in the Roadless Rule, as states rely on the rule to provide clean affordable water, protect aquatic life, promote recreation, and meet conservation and climate goals, among other things.
• The draft EIS from the agency does not comply with NEPA or the APA because the agency’s statement of purpose and need is unreasonably narrow, unlawfully limits the consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives, and departs from previous agency positions without a reasonable explanation.
• The proposal directly violates NEPA, as it fails to sufficiently consider the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the rule change on human environments as well as the economic impacts on small businesses. 

In sending this letter, Attorney General Bonta, alongside Washington Attorney General Nicholas Brown and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, co-led the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 26 states, counties, and cities in filing a lawsuit against the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) challenging its final rule weakening corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new passenger cars and light trucks. Historically, NHTSA’s standards have reduced consumer costs by improving fuel efficiency for vehicles, placed downward pressure on gas prices by reducing fuel consumption, protected the U.S. economy from global oil shocks, and reduced pollution from tailpipes and refineries. However, the final rule significantly weakens fuel economy standards and hurts consumers and the planet. In the lawsuit filed today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition allege that NHTSA’s new rule is contrary to law and that NHTSA contravenes its mandate from Congress to set fuel-economy standards at their “maximum feasible” level. Far from “maximum feasible,” NHTSA’s backsliding standards for the next five years require less efficiency than what the U.S. fleet actually achieved in 2021. 

“The President started a war that has created volatility in oil markets, disrupted global energy supplies, and left families and businesses paying the price at the pump. Yet, the Trump Administration is attempting to gut fuel economy standards and force Americans to spend billions more on gas while poisoning the air in our communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Let’s be clear: The Trump Administration is doing this to line the pockets of their Big Oil donors. California will not stand idly by, we will defend fuel economy standards that keep costs down, protect public health, and build a better, sustainable future.” 

In 1975, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which requires NHTSA to establish “maximum feasible” fuel economy standards for new vehicles that reflect technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the government, and the need to conserve energy. To set fuel economy standards, NHTSA first models the current fleet’s performance and then considers what, if any, additional actions manufacturers could take to improve their fuel economy in future model years above that. In past rulemakings, including during the first Trump Administration, NHTSA started from a realistic baseline fleet that included the millions of electric vehicles that already existed on our nation’s highways and roads and based fuel-economy standards on how additional technological improvements to gas-fueled cars could make that fleet more efficient. NHTSA never based fuel-economy standards on “mandating” automakers to produce more electric vehicles or requiring consumers to buy them.

The final rule misinterprets NHTSA’s statutory authority and improperly forces the agency to ignore the presence of millions of electric vehicles in the nation’s existing fleet, leading to a flawed, dramatically distorted analysis of the “maximum feasible” fuel economy level that the auto industry can achieve. Essentially, NHTSA’s novel reinterpretation of the law renders the federal fuel-economy program toothless, unable to protect consumers against rising gas prices or the ongoing global oil shock from President Trump’s war.

NHTSA has also utilized defective analyses of vehicle affordability and sales, fleet turnover, fuel savings, and vehicle safety to make a profoundly harmful and destructive rule look net-beneficial to society. For example, NHTSA tries to paper over nearly $220 billion in lost fuel savings — money that drivers would have saved at the pump under the previous fuel economy standards, which will instead benefit Big Oil. It also refuses to consider hundreds of billions of dollars in future damages from climate change-driven disasters, flouting the best science and research and effectively setting these costs at zero. Defying a longstanding and repeatedly affirmed Congressional mandate, NHTSA asserts that the United States does not need to conserve energy after all — treating the high gasoline prices and the instability of global oil markets as an acceptable trade for fossil fuel companies’ profits. Finally, NHTSA’s rule will end the CAFE credit trading program in 2028, which will significantly harm electric vehicle industries that employ Californians and support our economy.

In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition allege that NHTSA’s final rule is arbitrary and capricious and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to advocating for and defending drivers, consumers, and the environment. This year, he secured a key victory after the Trump Administration conceded its attempt to impose conditions on Department of Transportation grant funding for California’s vital travel infrastructure was unlawful. He also co-led a coalition in filing lawsuits against the Trump Administration for unlawfully suspending two bipartisan grant programs for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Previously, he filed an amicus brief defending NHTSA’s stringent fuel economy standards under the Biden Administration.

In filing this lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta leads the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the City of Chicago, the City and County of Denver, the City of New York, and the City and County of San Francisco.

Lawsuit ensures states’ ability to recover Congressionally appropriated federal funding impounded by the Trump Administration ahead of the end of fiscal year 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, leading a multistate coalition, filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful attempt to impound Congressionally appropriated federal funding that is crucial for states and their residents. This is the latest front in a multi-year campaign of failed attempts by the Trump Administration to stop, terminate, withdraw, or condition funding to states supporting policies Congress has chosen to fund but with which the President disagrees. In fact, more than one-third of the lawsuits Attorney General Bonta has filed against the current administration have involved attempts to restrict, rescind, or unlawfully condition federal funding to states, including California. But it is Congress, not the President, that wields the power of the purse. In today’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the impoundment of federal funding, including the President’s recently announced “pocket rescission,” violates the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.  

“I continue to be appalled by President Trump’s blatant disregard for the basic Constitutional framework of our government. Just because the President doesn’t like a program doesn’t mean he can defund it. Congress — the part of our government closest to the people — has the power of the purse. That structure exists for a reason: It protects the people from the authoritarian policy choices of a single person,” said Attorney General Bonta. “No President has ever worked so hard to rip healthcare, childcare, housing, and educational opportunities away from families. He should be ashamed. We’re going to court — once again — to protect against the rampant abuses of power by this Administration.” 

On September 25, 2026, five days before the end of the fiscal year, President Trump announced that his Administration would unilaterally rescind $810 million that it had determined “does not benefit American citizens.” Additionally, as of September 30, 2026, other Congressionally appropriated funding appears to remain unobligated and is therefore at risk of expiring, including funding for emergency services and education.

In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that impoundment — the Administration’s refusal to spend funds Congress has lawfully appropriated for particular purposes — violates the Separation of Powers Clause, the Appropriations Clause, and the Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The coalition further argues that the impoundment of funds is unlawful agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. 

Attorney General Bonta has repeatedly stood up to the President’s illegal attacks on federal funding for California — protecting an estimated $208 billion in funding for public safety, victims of crimes, education, childcare, food assistance, healthcare, biomedical research, transportation, clean energy, museums and libraries, and other vital programs and benefits Californians rely on. This includes: 

• Stopping the Trump Administration’s unlawful freeze of $10 billion in funding for childcare and family assistance in five states including California over unsupported allegations of fraud.
• Protecting roughly $8.7 billion through a preliminary injunction in his challenge to the Trump Administration’s attempt to impose new discriminatory conditions on U.S. Department of Agriculture grants. 
• Blocking the Trump Administration’s attempt to shut down the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, which helps communities prepare for and mitigate the risks from disasters before they happen. California anticipates receiving up to $1.1 billion in funding for various projects across the state.
• Stopping the Trump Administration's attempt to impose immigration enforcement conditions on transportation funding amounting to an estimated $7.7 billion.
• Blocking the Trump Administration’s attempt to withhold all federal education funding to California not once, but twice: Securing a court order rejecting the U.S. Department of Education’s demands that state and local education agencies certify compliance with the Department’s unlawful re-interpretation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and preventing the withholding of funding under the guise of enforcing the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
• Securing a permanent court order stopping $300 million in unlawful and drastic National Institutes of Health funding cuts from taking effect. 

Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon in filing the lawsuit.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a multistate coalition in filing a lawsuit challenging the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) insufficient evaluation of the environmental consequences of commercial drone package delivery. Drone operations are subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the FAA violated the law’s requirement to take a hard look at the environmental consequences that may result from a more expansive rollout of drone delivery operations.

“When it comes to cutting-edge innovation, the Trump Administration should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. As the fourth largest economy in the world — built in large part on technological innovation and a commitment to protecting our communities — California is proving that an economic future doesn’t need to come at the cost of our environment. Allowing states to be responsive to innovation while still protecting our planet serves both industry and consumers,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Unfortunately, FAA's programmatic environmental assessment falls far short of properly analyzing the environmental impacts that drone package delivery operations may have. At the California Department of Justice, we to stand firm that environmental justice and thoughtful innovation can and should go hand in hand. We will continue to uphold laws such as NEPA as a cornerstone of both.”

BACKGROUND

So far, drone delivery operations are already happening in states ranging from California to Arkansas and Florida to Utah. In 2022, Amazon initiated Prime Air deliveries in Lockeford, California and now seeks to expand those operations to additional cities like Tracy, California. These operations generally occur under 400 feet of altitude with packages that weigh less than five pounds. Packages are delivered via rope dropped down from the drone to a delivery location, dropped from a hover height, or by full stop landing. 

FAA purported to comply with NEPA by issuing a Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact, and Record of Decision. The PEA provides an overview of nationwide drone package deliveries to occur at future points in time without meaningful contextual information about the impacted communities or environment. It contemplates a dramatic expansion of package delivery by drones but does not adequately address the potential safety risks or other environmental impacts. NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the “reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed agency action.” In doing so, the agency must take a hard look at the environmental impacts. Despite that, the PEA fails to adequately consider the environmental risks. Thus, Attorney General Bonta and the multistate coalition today filed a lawsuit challenging the FAA’s PEA, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Record of Decision for commercial drone package delivery.

Attorney General Bonta joins the lawsuit along with the attorneys general of New York, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as Harris County, Texas.

OAKLAND — As part of a coalition of 15 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta this week secured a preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington that continues blocking the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) effort to terminate federal funding that helps schools recruit and train mental health professionals and provide essential mental health services. Congress established the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program and the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program following the school shootings in Parkland, FL and Uvalde, TX to address shortages of school-based counselors, psychologists, social workers, and other mental health professionals, particularly in high-need schools. The new ruling continues to block the Department’s termination plan, which the court first halted through a temporary restraining order earlier this year.

“The Trump Administration has repeatedly tried to cut critical mental health funding for schools, and we haven’t hesitated to fight back,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This preliminary injunction keeps these vital resources available to students and families who need them the most. We will keep holding this Administration accountable and defending the rule of law.” 

After Attorney General Bonta and a coalition of attorneys general successfully blocked the Department’s earlier effort to discontinue these grants, the Department announced a new plan to end the funding under a different regulation, leading the coalition to file a lawsuit that resulted in the preliminary injunction.

The court granted the coalition’s motion for a preliminary injunction because it found that the attorneys general are likely to succeed in showing that the Department’s termination plan is unlawful. The court found that the Department sought to re-evaluate grants based on new priorities that did not exist when grantees applied for the funding and failed to adequately consider grantees’ reliance on that funding. The court also found that the Department did not provide grantees with the notice and opportunity to be heard required before terminating the funding. 

Joining Attorney General Bonta in challenging the Department’s termination plan are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Court calls federal government’s attempt to starve CFPB of funding a “transparent display of partisanship”

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today celebrated a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, holding that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Acting Director Mark Paoletta must request necessary funding from the Federal Reserve so the CFPB can operate as Congress intended — lawfully funded and able to work so consumers have access to fair, transparent, and competitive markets for consumer financial products. The court held that former Acting Director Russell Vought’s insistence not to request funds for the CFPB were unlawful and violated the Separation of Powers Clause in the U.S. Constitution. Today’s order resolves in large part the lawsuit filed last year by Attorney General Bonta and a coalition of 22 attorneys general, pending appeal.  

“Today, we celebrate a giant win for consumers. A court has declared that the federal government’s attempt to refuse to fund the CFPB — the agency responsible for protecting consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts by Big Corporations — is an illegal, unconstitutional, and partisan attempt to starve the CFPB of lawful funding,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The CFPB is a critical resource for families and working Americans and has worked for over a decade to stand up for consumers taken advantage of by big banks, debt collectors, and credit reporting companies. The order we secured today demands the agency continue to be lawfully funded in order to keep up this important work, and halts the federal government from playing games with the financial protection of consumers in the future. Especially amid a crisis of affordability, today’s win is great news for families across the United States.”

The CFPB was created to protect consumers in the financial marketplace, and it performs critical functions necessary to the functioning of the financial system. For 14 years, the CFPB has served as an invaluable partner to state attorneys general and state banking regulators, as an enforcer, regulator, and resource for consumers. Shortly after taking office, the Trump Administration launched a campaign of destruction and systemic shuttering of the CFPB, threatening catastrophic harm to hardworking families and consumer financial markets nationwide.

The Trump Administration has taken a series of actions intended to debilitate the CFPB, including issuing a suspension of work across the agency, terminating probationary employees, attempting to issue reduction in force notices to 90% of the CFPB’s workforce — a move that was swiftly blocked by the courts.

In November 2025, the CFPB gave notice that it would not request funding from the Federal Reserve to continue its operations based on a specious legal analysis it had received from U.S. DOJ advising that it could not lawfully draw funds from the Federal Reserve to maintain its operations because the Federal Reserve is “unprofitable.” In December 2025, Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit challenging the CFPB Acting Director’s unlawful decision not to fund the agency’s operations, preventing it from performing legally mandated functions. 

In the lawsuit, the attorneys general argued that CFPB’s failure to seek funding for continued operations, including operations of its consumer complaints database, would harm consumers and result in statutorily mandated functions not being performed. The attorneys general asked the court to declare this action unlawful and ensure CFPB is properly funded, and today, it has.