Federal Accountability

Public media is an essential resource — especially for rural communities in emergency situations  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined 23 attorneys general in submitting an amicus brief supporting NPR (National Public Radio) and PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) in their challenge to the Trump Administration directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to withhold federal funding from NPR and PBS. California public broadcasting companies received over $57 million in grants and allocations from CPB last year, much of which is distributed through NPR and PBS. In the brief, the attorneys general highlight the important role of public media in providing millions of Americans — especially rural, remote, and Tribal communities — with essential state and nationwide news and emergency notifications. Especially as the state experiences an increase in wildfires, Californians rely on public radio to receive vital information including evacuation orders.  

“Public media serves all Americans, regardless of their ability to pay. In many rural communities, public radio stations are often the main or only source for local news and regularly partner with federal, state, and local authorities to provide lifesaving emergency communications, including early earthquake warnings and fire evacuation orders,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Without federal funding, rural areas of the country would lose this critical communication lifeline. Particularly amid an increase in natural disasters, leaving a whole swath of Americans without access to timely information is dangerous and unacceptable.”

Public radio and television station alerts and reporting on emergency situations are often a lifeline for audiences throughout the country. Public broadcasters transmit emergency alerts to areas where there is little or no reliable internet or cellular service or when this service is disrupted. Public radio and television stations often have hardened and resilient infrastructure that allows them to continue broadcasting during emergency situations that may knock out power or other communications resources. Loss of federal funding to NPR and PBS would result in impacts to state and local authorities who frequently partner with public broadcasters; authorities would lose access to infrastructure they rely on to communicate immediate and life-saving emergency alerts to the public. Because this infrastructure cannot be quickly, easily, or inexpensively replaced, Americans nationwide — and particularly those in rural and remote areas — would experience real harm. 

Public media is particularly critical in rural and Tribal areas where news, educational programming, and emergency alerts are significantly more limited. Rural areas are more vulnerable to the catastrophic effects of weather disasters and tend to not have the same access to reliable, high-speed internet as their urban counterparts. 

In California, federal funding cuts to public media will disproportionately affect small and rural media stations, which are primarily funded by CPB. Approximately 40% of CPB grantees are considered rural — and in recent years CPB has prioritized resources to remote stations, which face unique challenges and higher costs than urban stations to reach remote sparsely populated areas. Whereas most urban stations have other funding sources, CPB funds can account for up to 60% of a rural station’s funding, meaning that reduction or elimination of funding from CPB would have the most negative impact on stations serving these communities. 

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

A copy of the brief can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement following a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granting the federal government’s motion for a stay pending appeal in Newsom v. Trump. The court granted the federal government's motion, staying the district court’s temporary restraining order during the federal government's appeal. The temporary restraining order blocked the Trump Administration’s use of the federalized California National Guard to patrol our communities and engage in other law enforcement activity by returning control of the California National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom.

“While it is disappointing that our temporary restraining order has been stayed pending the federal government’s appeal, this case is far from over,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration far overreached its authority with its unprecedented and unlawful federalization of the California National Guard and deployment of military troops into our communities. As senior military leaders serving in administrations from JFK to Obama have affirmed, the use of the military on U.S. soil should be ‘rare, serious, and legally clear.’ That is not the case in Los Angeles where our state and local law enforcement officers responded effectively to isolated episodes of violence at otherwise peaceful protests and the President deliberately sought to create the very chaos and crises he claimed to be addressing. While the court did not provide immediate relief for Angelenos today, we remain confident in our arguments and will continue the fight.” 

A copy of the decision is available here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement on a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to grant a preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Department of Transportation’s imposition of unlawful immigration enforcement conditions on unrelated grant funding. In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that imposing this new set of conditions across a range of grant programs is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds the Trump Administration’s legal authority, and violates the Spending Clause.

“President Trump is threatening to withhold critical transportation funds unless states agree to carry out his inhumane and illogical immigration agenda for him. He is treating these funds – funds that go toward improving our roads and keeping our planes in the air – as a bargaining chip,” said Attorney General Bonta. “It’s immoral – and more importantly, illegal. I’m glad to see the District Court agrees, blocking the President’s latest attempt to circumvent the Constitution and coerce state and local governments into doing his bidding while we continue to make our case in court.”

BACKGROUND 

Last month, Attorney General Bonta led a coalition of 20 states, alongside the attorneys general of Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Maryland, in filing a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s effort to unlawfully impose immigration enforcement requirements on U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) grants. California receives billions in grant funding from DOT each year to support and maintain the roads, highways, railways, airways, and bridges that connect our communities and carry our residents to their workplaces and their homes. This includes funding to maintain and build highways. It also includes funding for transit systems in urban and rural communities across the state — including buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, trolleys, and ferries. Neither the purpose of these grants, nor their grant criteria, are in any way connected to immigration enforcement. 

A copy of the court’s decision is available here.

Judge sides with States, calling out the Trump Administration for an “appalling” pattern of discrimination against vulnerable communities

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday secured a ruling by U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan Administration appointee in the District of Massachusetts, who ruled that the Trump Administration’s directives to terminate National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants to public health research institutions in plaintiff states were unlawful. The court struck down both the termination of the grants and the underlying executive orders under the Administrative Procedure Act. Judge Young stated that the Trump Administration’s conduct represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community, and that he had “never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable” in his 40 years on the bench. With this decision, the court ordered the terminated grants in plaintiff states to be restored. This will allow California universities to resume their work of life-saving biomedical advancement while the case proceeds. The court will consider next steps in the case, including addressing the issue of whether NIH has unreasonably delayed new grant applications. 

“The Trump Administration’s illegal attack on NIH grants is an assault on life-saving medical research, and our diverse communities who rely on it, and I’m glad to see the court has recognized the merits of our case,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today’s decision restores grant funding to research institutions in plaintiff states that were terminated due to the Trump Administration’s reckless and discriminatory anti-DEI directives. The California Department of Justice will continue to fight for our diverse communities and the research institutions that do crucial work to advance our understanding of human disease and potential treatments.”

Background

On April 4th, 2025, Attorney General Bonta co-led a multistate coalition in filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the NIH for failing to disperse grant funds and for unlawfully terminating existing grants for medical and public health research institutions across the country. The lawsuit alleged that NIH had terminated large swaths of already-issued grants for projects that are currently underway based on the projects’ perceived connection to “DEI,” “transgender issues,” “vaccine hesitancy,” and other topics disfavored by the current Administration. In boilerplate letters issued to the grants’ recipients, NIH claimed that each cancelled project “no longer effectuates agency priorities.” On April 14th, the coalition filed an amended complaint and motion for preliminary injunction. The court later set the case for trial on the merits dividing the case into two parts, the first being whether the termination of existing grants was illegal and the second whether the delay in processing new grants was unreasonable. 

NIH is the federal agency responsible for biomedical and public health research. Over 80% of Congressional funding supports NIH research and training at external labs, schools, and hospitals. It is estimated that every $1 invested in NIH research generates $2.56 of economic activity.

Over the years, NIH-supported research has had a profound impact on the health and wellbeing of the American people. NIH scientists pioneered the rubella vaccine, eradicating a disease that, in the 1960s, killed thousands of babies and left thousands more with lifelong disabilities. NIH studies led to the discovery of the BRCA mutation, helping countless Americans reduce their risk of breast and ovarian cancer. NIH research fueled the development of treatments for HIV and AIDS, transforming what used to be a fatal disease into one with a nearly normal life expectancy.   

A copy of the order is available here.  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, alongside 18 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in support of Job Corps, a national program that offers career training and housing to young Americans from low-income backgrounds. Job Corps has nearly 100 residential campuses across the country, and the Trump Administration’s illegal termination of the program threatens to leave thousands of vulnerable young Americans homeless.

“Job Corps has opened doors for low-income youth, offering job training, education, and a pathway to economic stability,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration’s attempt to gut this critical program jeopardizes thousands of young people nationwide who rely on it. Not only is dismantling Job Corps unlawful, but it will hinder economic growth by dismantling a strong pipeline of skilled workers.” 

The brief explains that “in the sixty years since Congress created Job Corps, millions of young Americans from low-income backgrounds have been served by the program’s unique combination of education, training, housing, healthcare and community.”  The unlawful termination will impact tens of thousands of young Americans who are currently enrolled and housed at campuses in all fifty states. Thousands of these program participants were unhoused or in foster care when they enrolled and have no alternative housing if they lose their residence through the program.

The amicus filing reaffirms that the injunction is necessary to protect vulnerable state residents and promote state goals in education and workforce development. It further reinforces the point that the Trump Administration cannot violate federal law and the Constitution by terminating congressionally mandated programs it opposes.

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

A copy of the amicus brief is available here.  

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a coalition of 23 attorneys general, announced filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in support of the Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Trump Administration’s appeal of a preliminary injunction order in Global Health Council, et al. v. Trump, et al., a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s freeze of federal funding of foreign assistance funds from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). In their brief, the attorneys general argue that the Trump Administration’s unlawful impoundment of USAID funds undermines Congress’s constitutional authority and is contrary to the public interest, harming amici states and their residents.

“The Trump Administration does not have the authority to unilaterally withhold lawfully appropriated federal funds,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The unlawful impoundment of these funds results in irreparable harm to states across the nation that rely on federal funding for critical humanitarian and public health programs, research, and initiatives. In California alone, organizations and universities receive over $1.2 billion in USAID funding.”

In the amicus brief, the coalition of attorneys general urges the court to affirm the district court’s preliminary injunction order, arguing that the Trump Administration is constitutionally obligated to spend funds appropriated by Congress and that the unlawful freeze of USAID funding poses irreparable harm to states. In stopping the flow of billions of dollars of USAID funding for foreign assistance programs, the Trump Administration has inflicted substantial harms on universities, farmers, nonprofits, and small businesses across the nation. To date, hundreds of domestic workers have been terminated, substantial amounts of American crops intended for international distribution have been unallocated, and hundreds of millions of dollars of cutting-edge research projects at some of the nation’s top public universities have been halted as a result of the Trump Administration’s unlawful actions.

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

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement on a decision by the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granting a preliminary injunction blocking unlawful provisions in President Donald Trump’s unprecedented elections executive order. Attorney General Bonta co-led a coalition of 19 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit challenging the order in April 2025.  

“Today, the court blocked the President’s unconstitutional attempt to interfere with states' fundamental responsibilities to manage and administer our elections,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than the right to vote. We will continue to fight to ensure the President’s anti-Democratic, anti-American attacks on voting are never implemented.”

A copy of the court’s order is available here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and California Governor Gavin Newsom today secured a temporary restraining order blocking President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the U.S. Department of Defense from using federalized California National Guard to patrol our communities and engage in law enforcement activity. The order, issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, found that President Trump’s actions were illegal — “both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution” and ordered the Administration to “therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.” The order is stayed until 12pm PT tomorrow. 

“With this order, the Trump Administration is blocked from using federalized California National Guard troops to patrol our neighborhoods or carry out civilian law enforcement work,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The right to peacefully protest is a cornerstone of any healthy democracy. We will not stand idly by as the President attempts to intimidate and silence those who disagree with him. As the President attempts to inflame tensions and stoke fear in our communities, California and our local law enforcement stand ready to protect our communities and their right to make their voices heard safely and peacefully.”   

On June 9th, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit against President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth in response to their orders seeking to federalize the National Guard for 60 days under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. 

In the early hours of Sunday, June 8th, the U.S. Department of Defense, at the direction of the President, redirected hundreds of California National Guard troops from San Diego to Los Angeles, without authorization from the Governor and against the wishes of local law enforcement. In total, the Department has deployed 4,000 California National Guard troops from across the state, as well as an additional 700 Marines, an inflammatory escalation unsupported by conditions on the ground. In response, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a motion for temporary restraining order in their case, arguing that the use of these troops is illegal, creates imminent harm to state sovereignty, deprives the state of its use of the California National Guard, escalates tensions, and promotes rather than quells civil unrest. 

A copy of the court’s order is available here.

LOS ANGELES – California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and the California Air Resources Board today led a coalition of 10 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit against the federal government challenging the unprecedented and unlawful use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to upend California’s clean vehicles program, specifically the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACCII), Omnibus, and Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) standards. Predicated on illegal actions by the Trump Administration, Congress purported to disapprove the Clean Air Act waivers, granted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that allow California to enforce these more stringent, state-level emission standards. In the 50 years since the Clean Air Act was enacted, waivers have never been subject to the CRA.  Nor have any other agency orders that adjudicate requests for permission—such as oil and gas leases or mining permits. Congress’s unprecedented action attempting to invalidate California’s waivers contradicts the non-partisan Government Accountability Office and Senate Parliamentarian, both of whom determined that the CRA process to disapprove federal regulations does not apply to waivers.

If California is prevented from enforcing these vehicle emission standards, it will result in the loss of significant economic and public health benefits, costing California taxpayers an estimated $45 billion in preventable health care costs. Despite decades of progress, tens of millions of Californians still breathe some of the worst air in the nation—these regulations were specifically designed to change that. Losing these standards would also undermine market certainty for vehicle manufacturers, stifling innovation and job creation, including in the electric vehicle sector, which has been a growing source of high-paying green jobs and investment. 

“The President’s reckless, politically motivated, and illegal attacks on California continue, this time with his attempt to trample on our longstanding authority to maintain more stringent clean vehicle standards,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The President is busy playing partisan games with lives on the line and yanking away good jobs that would bolster the economy – ignoring that these actions have life or death consequences for California communities breathing dirty, toxic air. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: California will not back down. We will continue to fiercely defend ourselves from this lawless federal overreach.”

“Trump’s all-out assault on California continues – and this time he’s destroying our clean air and America’s global competitiveness in the process," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a President who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big polluters.”

Motor vehicle emissions contribute to the formation of smog, as well as fine particle pollution and unhealthy levels of air toxics, all of which are linked to premature death, respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, and cancer, among other serious health impacts. Transportation is also the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, and cars and trucks account for more than 80% of those transportation emissions. 

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set federal emission standards for air pollutants from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines that cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare. The Clean Air Act allows California to adopt more stringent emission requirements independent from EPA’s regulations, and the Act requires EPA to approve preemption waivers for those requirements absent certain, limited circumstances not present here. Historically, EPA – under both Republican and Democratic administration – has granted California more than 75 preemption waivers for updates to the State’s new motor vehicle emissions control program. As Congress intended, these waivers have allowed California to improve on its vehicle emissions program, which pre-existed the federal government’s efforts to regulate vehicle emissions via the Clean Air Act.

Consumers are rapidly embracing clean vehicle options. In California alone, over 2 million zero-emission passenger cars have been sold, with clean vehicles now making up 26% of all new car sales. This momentum extends to the medium-and heavy-duty vehicle market as well, where sales have exceeded targets for two consecutive years – well ahead of timelines set by state regulations.

Since 2023, the EPA granted California three waivers, allowing it to enforce the ACC II, Omnibus and ACT regulations in California. Under ACC II, automakers must continue to sell an increasing number of zero-emission vehicles in California—as they have been for decades. By model year 2035, 80% of the passenger vehicles sold in California must be zero-emission, while the remaining 20% may be plug-in hybrids. Advanced Clean Truck regulations, which aim to accelerate the widespread adoption of zero emission vehicles in the medium and heavy-duty truck sector, are similarly critical for California’s efforts to meet air quality standards and protect public health. By 2040, the Advanced Clean Truck regulations will reduce emissions of NOx by 16.9 tons per day and fine particulate matter emissions by 0.46 tons per day. The Omnibus regulation requires internal combustion heavy-duty trucks sold in California to meet strict standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), which are major contributors to smog formation.

Under the direction of President Trump, the EPA transmitted these waivers to Congress as “rules” in an attempt to invoke CRA procedures, even though all three waivers state EPA’s consistent and longstanding position, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, that waiver decisions are not “rules.” Both the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate illegally used the CRA to “disapprove” of California’s Clean Air Act waivers.

The complaint filed today alleges that the attempt to invalidate California’s waivers violated constitutional principles of federalism and separation of powers, the Take Care Clause, and multiple federal statutes including the Congressional Review Act and Administrative Procedure Act.  The complaint asks the court to declare the resolutions to be unlawful and to require the Administration to implement the Clean Air Act consistent with the granted waivers. 

Attorney General Bonta led the lawsuit with the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

A copy of the complaint is available here.

Lawsuit responds to threats by U.S. DOJ if California school districts do not certify to banning transgender students from playing on sports teams consistent with their gender identity 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a pre-enforcement lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ) in anticipation of imminent legal retaliation against California’s school systems. Last week, U.S. DOJ issued a letter requesting certification from California school districts that they will not comply with longstanding state anti-discrimination law that provides for the participation in sports for K-12 students consistent with gender identity. Today, the California Department of Education notified U.S. DOJ that the state will not certify to its demands, which would require school districts to violate not only existing state law, but also the U.S. Constitution. In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to uphold California’s anti-discrimination law and prevent the Trump Administration from taking retaliatory action, such as withholding or conditioning federal funding, over the state’s refusal to comply with U.S. DOJ’s unlawful demands. 

“The President and his Administration are demanding that California school districts break the law and violate the Constitution – or face legal retaliation. They’re demanding that our schools discriminate against the students in their care and deny their constitutionally protected rights,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As we’ve proven time and again in court, just because the President disagrees with a law, that doesn’t make it any less of one. As California’s chief legal officer, I’ll always fight to uphold and defend the laws of our state, especially those that protect and ensure the civil rights of the most vulnerable among us.”

Since 2012, it has been the law and policy of California that all persons, regardless of their gender, gender identity, or gender expression, should enjoy equal rights and opportunities, and freedom from discrimination of any kind, in their education. In 2013, the Legislature made clear that these protections specifically encompass school athletics. Similarly, the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), the statewide governing body for school sports, allows all students to participate in athletics in accordance with their gender identity pursuant to its Bylaw 300.D. 

With its recent certification letter, U.S. DOJ seeks to unlawfully upend, through executive decree, California’s longstanding policy of inclusion and anti-discrimination. On June 2, 2025, local educational agencies in California received a letter from U.S. DOJ wrongly asserting that Bylaw 300.D “requires California public high schools to allow male participation in girls’ interscholastic athletics,” and as such, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The letter demanded that these agencies “certify” that they would not implement Bylaw 300.D by June 9, 2025, “[t]o ensure compliance and to avoid legal liability.”

In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta argues that U.S. DOJ has no right to make such a demand. Prevailing Ninth Circuit precedent holds that categorically prohibiting transgender students from participating in athletic programs in accordance with their gender identity violates the Equal Protection Clause. Furthermore, allowing athletic participation consistent with students’ gender identity is squarely within the State’s authority to ensure all students are afforded the benefits of an inclusive school environment, including participation in school sports, and to prevent the serious harms that transgender students would suffer from a discriminatory, exclusionary policy. Acceding to U.S. DOJ’s demands would force California school districts to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and California’s antidiscrimination laws. While the certification demand letter purports that compliance with the Equal Protection Clause requires the categorical exclusion of transgender girls from girls’ sports, as courts have previously upheld, just the opposite is true: the Equal Protection Clause forbids such policies of total exclusion, as does California law.

A copy of the lawsuit is available here.