Federal Accountability

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to the District Court for the District of Columbia granting a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump Administration from retaliating against Perkins Coie LLP and its attorneys, as part of a campaign by President Trump to silence lawyers and law firms that represent individuals and causes he opposes and to chill opposition.

“This ruling is a win for free speech and the rule of law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The President cannot use the power of his office to punish those who disagree with him. Today, our system of checks and balances worked. The court blocked the Trump Administration from retaliating against Perkins Coie based solely on the clients and ideas it represents, in accordance with the rights and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution to protect the American public.” 

Earlier today, as part of a multistate coalition, Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in support of law firm Perkins Coie’s lawsuit seeking to block the Trump Administration from retaliating against the firm and its attorneys for no reason other than that it has dared to challenge the Administration in court.  In the amicus brief, the attorneys general defended the rule of law and a fundamental principle underlying the American legal system — that everybody is entitled to vigorous representation.   

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a brief urging the United States Supreme Court to affirm the court of appeals’ decision in Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency. The case concerns a waiver of preemption, granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2013, which authorized the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to enforce standards—promulgated in 2012—requiring automakers to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and increase production of zero-emission vehicles. 

Petitioners, who are in the oil and biofuel industries, did not challenge the waiver when it was first issued. Instead, they filed their challenge nearly a decade later, after the federal waiver was reinstated in 2022 following an unlawful rescission in 2019. Petitioners argued that the reinstated waiver exceeded EPA’s authority under federal law. Attorney General Bonta, with Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Air Resources Board, led a group of States and local governments to intervene in the case to defend against the challenge. In April 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the challenge, ruling that the petitioners lacked legal standing. That was because by the time petitioners’ case began, automakers were producing large numbers of zero-emission vehicles due to consumer demand and the automakers’ past investments, and petitioners failed to show that judicial relief would likely redress their asserted harm by increasing fuel sales.

“Congress recognized that California has special expertise and experience in protecting our people, our health, and our environment from preventable pollution through vehicle emissions standards,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Our solutions have encouraged advancements in cleaner automotive technologies, and improved the health and well-being of communities statewide, showing how strong environmental policies and economic growth go hand in hand. That’s why we intervened, to make sure there would be a strong defense of California’s authority. These challengers waited nearly a decade to bring this suit, and then they didn’t even show that that they would benefit from increased sales if their suit succeeded. We will defend the dismissal of this case on standing grounds, and we will continue to defend California’s authority in future cases that may arise.”

“For more than 50 years, the Clean Air Act has helped usher in clean air and healthier communities across the nation and the globe,” said CARB Executive Officer Dr. Steven S. Cliff. “Again and again, California’s experience shows environmental protection and economic prosperity go together. We remain committed to holding our ground, fully defending our authority and ensuring American competitiveness.”  

Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set emission standards for air pollutants from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines that cause or contribute to air pollution and endanger public health or welfare. Under the Clean Air Act, California may adopt emission requirements independent from EPA’s regulations, and EPA is required to waive preemption for those requirements absent certain, limited circumstances. 

In the brief, Attorney General Bonta explains that: 

• California’s 2012 standards originally set ambitious goals for automakers to increase their sales of zero-emission vehicles and reduce fleetwide average greenhouse gas emissions. The standards were designed to spur investment and technological innovation.  
• In the following years, automakers invested heavily in new technologies and manufacturing capabilities, and consumer comfort with zero-emission vehicles increased. Consumers showed themselves willing to pay price premiums and endure wait times for sought-after vehicles, and sales increased faster than regulators had predicted. By 2022, when this challenge began, automakers were selling large numbers of vehicles that satisfy California’s standards for their own reasons—to profit from their investments and take advantage of that consumer demand. 
• As a result, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioners’ challenge for lack of standing. The petitioners failed to show that a court’s vacatur of the waiver in 2022—when petitioners filed their challenge—would increase fuel sales and alleviate petitioners’ asserted injuries. 

A copy of the brief can be found here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta continues to support the U.S. District Court's decision to reinstate Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Today, Attorney General Bonta, alongside 21 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in continued opposition to President Donald Trump’s unlawful attempt to remove Gwynne Wilcox, a Member of the NLRB. Dismissing Wilcox would leave just two members remaining on the five-member board, which cannot act without a quorum of at least three members.

On February 28, Attorney General Bonta, as part of a coalition of 20 attorneys general, filed his first amicus brief in Wilcox v. Trump in support of Gwynne Wilcox, who challenged the President’s unlawful removal of her position as a Member of the NLRB. Last week, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order declaring that Member Wilcox should remain a full member of the NLRB and found the President’s action firing her to be “blatantly illegal.” The Trump administration has asked for a stay to stop the ruling from going into effect while it seeks an appeal, which would effectively allow her firing to take effect. In today’s brief, the attorneys general urge the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to deny the administration’s request for a stay. The coalition argues that if allowed to stand, the attempt to dismiss Wilcox would undermine protections for workers and destabilize federal labor law.

“Gwynne Wilcox’s purported removal from NLRB was unlawful, period,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Workers across the country rely on the NLRB to protect their rights by preventing unfair labor practices and safeguarding their ability to unionize. I, alongside my fellow attorneys general, will continue to be steadfast in our commitment to upholding the law and ensure that Member Wilcox and NLRB can continue their critical work to protect workers nationwide.”

The NLRB is an independent federal agency that enforces U.S. labor laws related to workers’ rights, union representation, and collective bargaining. It oversees union elections, ensuring that employees can freely choose whether to be represented by a union. The Board also investigates and resolves unfair labor practice charges against employers and unions, addressing issues like retaliation, unlawful firings, and refusal to bargain in good faith. The NLRB also adjudicates disputes under the NLRA and issues rulings that shape labor law policies. To protect the NLRB from political pressure by the President, NLRB board members are appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress for staggered 5-year terms. Board members do not serve at the pleasure of the President. Federal law provides that Board members can only be removed by the President “upon notice and hearing, for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause.”  

In January, President Trump purported to dismiss Gwynne Wilcox from her position as a member of the NLRB without cause, an action unprecedented in the agency’s 90-year history. Wilcox, the first Black woman to serve on the NLRB, was set to conclude her tenure in August 2028.  

In the amicus brief, the attorneys general argue that the President violated the NLRA and support Wilcox's challenge of her unlawful removal from the Board. If the Board is not able to convene, it cannot issue rules or adjudicate unfair labor practices. This regulatory vacuum would harm workers everywhere if the NLRB's inactivity continues. In the brief, the attorneys general highlight that by removing Wilcox and incapacitating the NLRB, the Trump Administration will leave American workers without the entity authorized to ensure the guaranteed ability to join a union and engage in collective bargaining, protections which workers have relied on for decades. This regulatory vacuum is deeply troubling given the importance and scale of the work done by the NLRB. In the past decade, the NLRB reviewed nearly 3,000 allegations of unfair labor practices.

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. 

A copy of the brief can be found here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a multistate coalition, filed an amicus brief in support of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP’s lawsuit seeking to block the Trump Administration from retaliating against the firm and its attorneys for no reason other than that it has dared to challenge the Administration in court. The Trump Administration’s actions against Perkins Coie are part of a campaign by President Trump to silence lawyers and law firms that represent individuals and causes to which he is opposed and to chill opposition. In the amicus brief, the attorneys general defend the rule of law and the fundamental principle underlying the American legal system — that everybody is entitled to vigorous representation.   

“The right to an attorney is a bedrock of our legal system and American democracy as a whole,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration’s political attack on Perkins Coie — based solely on the clients and ideas they represent — is unprecedented and unjustifiable. If it goes unchecked, it will have an immediate chilling effect on attorneys nationwide, instilling a fear of retaliation among those who dare to disagree with this President. I stand with my fellow attorneys general in condemning the President’s campaign of retribution. Once again, the President acts as if he were a king — ignoring the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution he swore to uphold.”

The Trump Administration has retaliated against law firms and other legal professionals associated with investigations related to President Trump or who espouse or employ principles and practices that advance diversity, equity, and inclusion — specifically Perkins Coie and Covington and Burling LLP. In a March 6, 2025 Executive Order entitled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP,” the Trump Administration targeted the law firm for its representation of Hillary Clinton, its diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, and unsupported “national security” concerns. 

In their amicus brief, the attorneys general support Perkins Coie’s motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent the Trump Administration’s retaliatory actions against Perkins Coie from going into effect while litigation continues. The attorneys general argue that the President’s executive order runs roughshod over the First Amendment and the basic principles underlying the U.S. adversarial justice system by attempting to exclude certain lawyers and certain viewpoints from reaching the court at all: barring Perkins Coie lawyers from entering federal buildings and meeting with federal government employees; revoking their security clearances; and ending existing federal contracts with the firm and its clients.

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

A copy of the brief is available here. 

District Court judge issues temporary restraining order 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts temporarily blocking the Trump Administration’s unlawful termination of K-12 teacher preparation pipeline grants while the states seek a preliminary injunction. Attorney General Bonta led a coalition of eight attorneys general in filing a lawsuit challenging the termination of this funding last week.  

“The Trump Administration recklessly and unlawfully terminated grants that had been awarded and obligated to K-12 teacher preparation programs in California and across the country – without any regard for the teachers and students who would pay the price,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This includes $8 million which California universities and colleges planned to use between now and September to make sure our schools have the teachers they need come fall. Today’s decision is a crucial early victory to ensure these grant dollars continue to flow and our kids get the passionate, qualified, good teachers they deserve.” 

BACKGROUND

In 2024, more than 400,000 teaching positions in the U.S. — representing about one in eight of all teaching positions nationwide — were vacant or filled by uncertified teachers. When schools are unable to find qualified teachers, students suffer. Teacher shortages can result in larger class sizes, cancelled courses, or classes staffed with teachers less able to teach a subject.

To address the nationwide teacher shortage, especially for hard-to-fill subject areas, like math, science, and special education, and in hard-to-staff school districts in rural and urban areas, Congress established and allocated funding pursuant to the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development grant programs to train teachers, create a new teacher pipeline, and improve teacher quality. The U.S. Department of Education subsequently awarded and obligated funds to states’ public universities and associated nonprofits grants under these programs to do exactly what Congress mandated — provide teacher training, placement, and retention, and new teacher pipeline development in the states.

Beginning on February 7, 2025, the Department of Education terminated, with immediate effect, grants awarded to K-12 teacher preparation programs in California and nationwide. Hundreds of millions in grants have been terminated. In California alone, the Department provided notice of termination of grants with a total value of at least $148 million, including at the California State University, Los Angeles; Chico State; Cal Poly San Luis Obispo; and the University of California Los Angeles. These terminations would be felt immediately across California schools who rely on these programs to bring teachers into their classrooms. The terminations would also cause layoffs or reductions in hours for University staff, and result in reduced or eliminated support and funding for new aspiring teachers. 

Attorney General Bonta is leading this lawsuit with Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell and New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin. They are joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin.

A copy of the court order is available here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta, as part of a multistate coalition, filed an amicus brief in Schilling v. Trump in support of a challenge to President Trump’s executive order attempting to prohibit transgender servicemembers from serving in the military in any capacity.

A copy of the brief can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 18 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in National TPS Alliance v. Noem in support of a challenge to the early termination of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Venezuela. TPS is a critical humanitarian program that allows nationals of designated countries to remain in the United States due to ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or extraordinary and temporary conditions in their home countries. Currently before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the case is challenging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) unprecedented efforts to terminate TPS for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan nationals, many of whom have been in the United States for several years and live with family members who are U.S. citizens. In their brief, the attorneys general urge the district court to grant the plaintiffs’ motion to postpone the unlawful early termination of the TPS designation for Venezuela.

“We are filing an amicus brief to help stop the unlawful early termination of the Venezuela TPS designation. The Trump Administration’s attack on TPS is an attack on vulnerable individuals who are fleeing a humanitarian crisis, in search of safety and a better life for their families,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California is home to more than 72,000 TPS beneficiaries, the fourth most of any state. Our Venezuelan TPS holders are far from being a burden or threat to our state, instead they are a resounding benefit. In California alone, TPS households earned $2.1 billion in income, paid $291.2 million in federal taxes, and paid $226.5 million in state and local taxes. These individuals are our neighbors, co-workers, caregivers, and job-creators, and they contribute to our communities in numerous ways.” 

Nearly 1.1 million individuals living in the United States are TPS recipients or eligible. The termination of TPS for Venezuelans will not only harm states but will also force hardworking families to make agonizing choices between (1) returning to their country of origin alone, leaving their children behind in broken families or in the foster care system; (2) taking their U.S. citizen children with them to a dangerous country that the children do not know; or (3) staying in the United States and retreating into the shadows, knowing that they cannot work legally and could be removed at any time. Over 130,000 U.S. citizens live in “mixed status” households with individuals whom DHS wants to unlawfully strip of their temporary protected status—and this figure does not account for the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans who were made eligible under a 2023 re-designation of TPS.

In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to prevent this order from going into effect, arguing that the termination of Venezuelan TPS is unlawful and will:

• Result in irreparable harm to families, stripping members of work authorization exposing them to the threat of deportation.
• Harm states’ economies and workforces as the TPS-holder community, including the Venezuelan community, are dynamic contributors to Amici States’ economies.
• Raise healthcare costs and pose substantial risks to public health.
• Create challenges for jurisdictions across the country in enforcing their criminal codes and protecting public safety. 

Attorney General Bonta co-led the filing of today’s brief along with the Attorney General of New York, and is joined by the following states: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia. 

A copy of the brief can be found here.

Ruling follows an amicus brief filed by Attorney General Bonta in support of Wilcox 

Judge calls Wilcox’s firing “blatantly illegal” 

OAKLAND – The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order granting summary judgment in Wilcox v. Trump. The order declares that Gwynne Wilcox remains a full member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and finds that she was unlawfully dismissed by President Donald Trump. Following her purported dismissal from NLRB, Wilcox filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration. On February 28, California Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 20 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in support of Wilcox, underscoring that the purported removal was unlawful, exceeded presidential authority, and would undermine the independence of federal agencies. In its ruling, the court stated that, “in the ninety years since the NLRB’s founding, the President has never removed a member of the board. His attempt to do so here is blatantly illegal, and his constitutional arguments to excuse this illegal act are contrary to Supreme Court precedent and over a century of practice.”  

“The Court rightfully held that the President’s attempt to dismiss NLRB Member Wilcox without cause was both illegal and void. No one is above the law – not even the President,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Workers across the country rely on the NLRB to protect their rights by preventing unfair labor practices and safeguarding their ability to unionize. Trump’s attempt to remove Member Wilcox jeopardized these rights by denying the NLRB a quorum and leaving the field open for bad actors to trample on workers’ rights. We’re pleased the NLRB and Member Wilcox can continue their work to protect workers across our country.”  

On January 27, 2025, President Trump purported to dismiss Wilcox from the NLRB during the middle of her five-year appointment, leaving just two members remaining on the five-member board. This denied the NLRB a quorum, incapacitating it. The amici states argued that a functioning NLRB is necessary for the enforcement of labor laws across the United States. 

The NLRB is an independent federal agency that enforces U.S. labor laws related to workers’ rights, union representation, and collective bargaining. It oversees union elections, ensuring that employees can freely choose whether to be represented by a union. The board also investigates and resolves unfair labor practice charges against employers and unions, addressing issues like retaliation, unlawful firings, and refusal to bargain in good faith. The amici states argued that the unlawful firing of Wilcox and incapacitating of the NLRB created a dangerous regulatory vacuum. 

While the president appoints members of the NLRB, the president can only fire board members for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. This was done intentionally by Congress to grant the board some level of political independence. The court found that Wilcox was not dismissed for neglect or malfeasance, but rather because she did not share the political objectives of the Trump Administration. In its ruling confirming Wilcox’s status on the board, the court noted that, “as an entity entrusted with making impartial decisions about sensitive labor disputes, the NLRB’s character and perception as neutral and expert-driven is damaged by plaintiff’s unlawful removal.” 

In their amicus brief, the states argued that the NLRB’s independence is crucial to the Board, as it prevents the NLRB from completely changing its approach to enforcing American labor laws every few years. The result of that independence is a stability and predictability that are broadly beneficial to labor relations across America. 

In submitting the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joined the attorneys generals of Minnesota, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

Files Lawsuit Against Federal Government to Stop Mass Firing of Probationary Employees 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit challenging numerous federal agencies for conducting an illegal mass firing of federal probationary employees. In today’s lawsuit, 20 attorneys general argue that the Trump Administration’s Office of Personnel Management’s directive to agencies to terminate probationary employees en masse to reduce the size of the federal workforce exceeds any statutory authority granted by Congress. The lawsuit seeks to immediately halt further firings and reinstate unlawfully terminated federal employees while litigation proceeds.

“The Trump Administration’s sweeping mass firing of probationary federal employees is simply unlawful,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Not only is the administration breaking the law, while they claim these actions are necessary to ‘curb waste and inefficiency,’ the reality is that abrupt and indiscriminate terminations will lead to increased operation disruptions, higher rehiring costs, and long-term financial burdens on taxpayers. This reckless directive has inflicted chaos and harmed federal workers who are key contributors to our economy and provide critical services that affect the everyday lives of Californians, from offering support for veterans and farmers, to protection of our cherished national parks and lands. I won’t stand idly by as the President attempts yet another unlawful power grab. I am proud to file this lawsuit with my fellow attorneys general across the nation to reinstate unlawfully terminated federal employees and halt further firings.”

Nationally, there are more than 5.1 million federal workers. Nearly all federal employees serve a one-or two-year probationary period, and more than 200,000 are on probationary status across the federal government. In California, numerous federal employees serve in critical roles across key agencies including the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Forest Service, among others.

The abrupt, pretextual termination of federal employees is not only unlawful but also disrupts essential government services and has far reaching economic effects. Specifically, in California, federal employees heavily contribute to our economy by paying state income taxes and generating substantial local revenue. This unlawful reduction in workforce has already caused a 149% increase in state unemployment benefit claims by federal workers and will inevitably impact small businesses through decreased consumer spending and decline in demand. This callous decision not only fuels broader economic uncertainty but directly contradicts yet another of the President’s empty promises to “immediately bring prices down, starting on day one” of his presidency. 

In the complaint, the attorneys general allege that the Trump Administration's failure to comply with Reduction in Force (RIF) procedures was arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with law, and in violation of the federal Administrative Procedures Act. These critical protections ensure that workers and impacted communities receive advance notice of mass layoffs to blunt the disruptions they cause for the affected personnel and their communities and also ensure that personnel such as military veterans are given preference in retaining their jobs.

When a RIF results in a layoff of 50 or more employees, the agency must generally give at least 60 days’ advance notice to state governments, so they can provide vital “rapid response” information, resources, and services to affected workers. The federal agencies named in the lawsuit failed to provide any advance notice to California, causing significant expense and burden on the state as it scrambles to respond to the sudden mass layoffs of its residents. In the month of February 2025, there was a 149% uptick in unemployment insurance claims filed by individuals recently terminated from federal service. 

The attorneys general are seeking declaratory relief, a temporary restraining order to pause further mass firings, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief that would reinstate unlawfully terminated federal employees and enjoin further terminations that do not follow required legal procedures.

Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‛i, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia in filing this lawsuit. 

A copy of the complaint can be found here. A copy of the motion for a temporary restraining order and supporting memorandum can be found here and here. 

If allowed to go into effect, the federal funding freeze would have threatened hundreds of billions of dollars in California annually, including vital public safety, healthcare, childcare, and infrastructure funding, and other essential services

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island preventing the Trump Administration from implementing a sweeping federal funding freeze while litigation continues. The Court finds that the states are likely to succeed in their claims that the Trump Administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by freezing funds in contravention of underlying appropriations statutes and that their actions were arbitrary and capricious. The Court specifically notes that the Trump Administration has failed to rebut the harms that the states have presented, including to the states’ most vulnerable residents. These include the potential impacts to services that increase workplace health and safety, water quality, critical transportation infrastructure, and law enforcement and public safety, as well as programs such as Head Start, education services for students with disabilities, and research projects at state universities. Attorney General Bonta led a coalition of 23 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to block the funding freeze last month. 

“Last month, the Trump Administration chaotically implemented a sweeping federal funding freeze, halting access to billions of dollars in funds lawfully appropriated by Congress. In doing so, it willfully ignored the immediate devastation a freeze would have on the health, safety, and wellbeing of communities and businesses across the country,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Staff in my office worked overnight to ready a lawsuit challenging this illegal freeze and have continued to fight for these critical funds. Today’s decision is an important victory for the rule of law and for the many programs throughout our state that rely on federal funding to carry out their mission. But the fight is not over, and we will continue to work to secure a permanent decision blocking this radical freeze.”

BACKGROUND 

Last month, a coalition of 23 attorneys general, led by the attorneys general of California, New York, Rhode Island, Illinois, and Massachusetts, sued the Trump Administration over its attempt to freeze up to $3 trillion in vital federal funding. The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island quickly granted the attorneys general’s request for a temporary restraining order, blocking the freeze’s implementation until further order from the court. Soon after, the attorneys general filed motions for enforcement and a preliminary injunction to stop the illegal freeze and preserve federal funding that families, communities, and states rely on. The court granted the motion for enforcement, ordering the Administration to immediately comply with the temporary restraining order and stop unlawfully freezing federal funds. 

In just this fiscal year, California is expected to receive $168 billion in federal funding – 34% of the state’s budget – not including funding for the state’s public college and university system. This includes $107.5 billion in funding for California’s Medicaid programs, which serve approximately 14.5 million Californians, including 5 million children and 2.3 million seniors and people with disabilities. Additionally, over 9,000 full-time equivalent state employee positions are federally funded.

Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin in securing the preliminary injunction.   

A copy of the preliminary injunction is available here.