Federal Accountability

Trump Administration continues attack on state rights, putting public safety at risk 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a multistate coalition, sought emergency relief from the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Rhode Island to stop the unlawful reallocation of hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Homeland Security Grant Program funding away from states like California. For decades, California has relied on this funding to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorism and other catastrophes. And across each presidential administration, this funding had been allocated even-handedly and on the basis of need and risk. On Saturday, however, California and other states received award notifications that were significantly lower than anticipated — without justification and seemingly based on their states’ decision to use their law enforcement resources to protect public safety rather than assist in federal immigration enforcement. In filing the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition assert that this reallocation exceeds FEMA’s statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious, and violates the U.S. Constitution. 

“The Trump Administration is setting a record as one of the most anti-law enforcement, anti-public safety administrations in America’s history,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Tell me, how does defunding California’s efforts to protect against terrorism make our communities safer? President Trump doesn’t like that we won’t be bullied into doing his bidding, ignoring our sovereign right to make decisions about how our law enforcement resources are best used to protect our communities. We secured a permanent injunction last week blocking the Trump Administration’s illegal efforts to condition this funding, and today, we’re seeking emergency relief to keep them from unlawfully diverting Congressionally-appropriated homeland security funding away from our state without justification and apparently because they don’t like our commitment to public safety. Unlike this President, I will always step up and defend California’s safety.” 

The Trump Administration seeks to reduce California’s funding for two Homeland Security Grant Programs. The State Homeland Security Program assists state, local, and tribal efforts in building, sustaining, and delivering capabilities necessary to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism. The Urban Area Security Initiative assists high-threat, high-density urban areas in addressing terrorism threats. Specifically, these program grants enhance cybersecurity, support infrastructure security enhancements, and fund trainings and exercises designed to test and improve emergency preparedness and terrorism prevention. These funds are also utilized to procure specialized equipment including detection systems for chemical and biological agents, specialized response vehicles, personal protective equipment for first responders, security cameras, and warning systems, among other uses. Congress created these federal grant programs and appropriates billions of dollars each year to ensure they are fully funded to meet the nation’s needs. And for decades, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its sub-agency, FEMA have operated these programs evenhandedly — until the Trump Administration. 

On January 20, 2025, his first day in office, President Trump directed DHS to “ensure that so-called ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions do not receive access to Federal funds.” The President deemed certain states and jurisdictions in “lawless insurrection,” despite the fact that courts have upheld laws like California’s SB 54 as constitutional and consistent with federal immigration law and firmly rebuked the Trump Administration’s attempts to condition federal funds on assistance with immigration enforcement. Just last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a permanent injunction in California’s lawsuit blocking the Trump Administration’s effort to unlawfully impose immigration enforcement requirements on billions of dollars in annual DHS grants. Yet, DHS and FEMA remain undeterred from continuing to attempt to carry out the President’s directive. 

On Saturday, September 27, FEMA issued award notifications for its single largest grant program — the Homeland Security Grant Program, which totals approximately $1 billion in funds annually. Consistent with federal law, FEMA has previously issued notices of funding opportunity preliminarily allocating the funding among state recipients based on each jurisdiction’s “relative threat, vulnerability, and consequences from acts of terrorism.” According to that notice, California could expect to receive approximately $165 million in grant funding. However, when California received the grant notification, the award was only $110 million, reflecting a 33% reduction. Some states saw even sharper cuts: Illinois received a 69% reduction in funding, and New York received a 79% reduction. At the same time, many other states saw increases to their allocation upwards of 100%. While the states are still gathering information, a defining factor appears to be whether a state was a so-called “sanctuary” jurisdiction or not. In short, the current Administration appears to be taking money from its perceived “enemies” and reallocating it to its “friends.”  

In their lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the reallocation of this grant funding is unlawful and should be vacated and set aside. The Homeland Security Act requires DHS and FEMA to allocate Homeland Security Grant Programs funds using objective, risk-based criteria. Instead, the reallocation appears to rest on another factor: California and other states’ domestic policies about how to best utilize their domestic law-enforcement resources. The reallocation also is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, withdrawing hundreds of millions of dollars from states like California with no explanation and based on factors Congress did not intend DHS to consider. Finally, the reallocation violates the Constitution, by baselessly treating California differently from other states. 

In their motion for a temporary restraining order, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition ask the court for immediate, emergency relief requiring FEMA to rescind the award notifications and blocking FEMA from disbursing funding that would then potentially be unavailable to California and other states if they are successful in the litigation.

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington in filing the lawsuit and motion for emergency relief. 

A copy of the lawsuit is available here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a permanent injunction from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island blocking the Trump Administration’s effort to unlawfully impose immigration enforcement requirements on billions of dollars in annual U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants. In issuing a permanent injunction, the Court found that the Trump Administration’s attempt to impose this new set of conditions across a range of grant programs was arbitrary and capricious, exceeded the Trump Administration’s legal authority, and violated the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

“Today, a court definitively rebuked the Trump Administration’s illegal efforts to withhold critical public safety funding from states that refuse to carry out his mass deportation agenda,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This permanent injunction is a huge win in our case that will protect funding for our communities to defend against terrorist attacks and prepare for emergencies. This is a good day for the rule of law and public safety.” 

California receives funding from DHS to prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks and other catastrophes. This includes counterterrorism grants, grants that allow states to prepare for terrorism in high-concentration urban areas, emergency preparedness grants, cybersecurity grants, and many others that are similarly not connected to civil immigration enforcement. State and local law enforcement already work closely with federal agencies on the counterterrorism measures that these grants fund.  

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

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 22 attorneys general and the state of Pennsylvania, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block the Trump Administration from enforcing the “Defund Provision” within the recently enacted federal budget bill (“Big Beautiful Bill”). The Defund Provision excludes certain health centers, including Planned Parenthood health centers, from receiving federal Medicaid reimbursements. Among other things, these centers provide essential healthcare services to low-income patients, such as cancer screenings, testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and birth control. After filing suit over the Defund Provision on July 29, 2025, the coalition is now asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to grant its motion for a preliminary injunction because the States are likely to succeed on the merits, the Defund Provision would result in irreparable harm to the States if allowed to stay in effect, and the balance of equities and the public interest favor the States. In a related lawsuit, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an unpublished order on September 11, 2025 granting the Trump Administration’s request to allow the Defund Provision to go into effect. 

“For years and years, the attacks on Planned Parenthood have been relentless. With the Defund Provision in President Trump’s so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ those attacks have escalated to an all-out assault. Let me be clear: Our coalition’s support for Planned Parenthood and other health centers providing essential reproductive healthcare is resolute,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “We are asking the court to grant our motion for a preliminary injunction because the stakes have never been higher. These centers provide critical healthcare services for low-income patients across the country — our states, and the health of our people, will suffer immensely if the Defund Provision is allowed to remain in effect.” 

“Right now, access to abortion and reproductive health care in California hangs in the balance. All 109 Planned Parenthood health centers in California are currently prohibited from being reimbursed for any of the services they provide to patients on Medi-Cal. As a trusted provider in the Medi-Cal program, Planned Parenthood health centers continue to provide care to these patients, but given over 80% of Planned Parenthood patients in California are Medi-Cal enrollees, this is unsustainable and greatly jeopardizes sexual and reproductive health care access in the state,” said Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California CEO and President Jodi Hicks. “If the Defund Provision remains in effect, Planned Parenthood health centers in California will be forced to reduce services, scale back hours, or close their doors — cutting off access to live-saving health care services for our most vulnerable communities. As we continue to weather these attacks by the Trump Administration, PPAC is grateful to California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state attorneys general for their ongoing efforts to halt this devastating federal defund and ensure people can continue to access the essential health care they need and deserve, including at Planned Parenthood health centers.” 

The coalition’s lawsuit alleges that the Defund Provision violates the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause due to the lack of clear notice and the inclusion of unconstitutional provisions. Specifically, it is evident that Planned Parenthood health centers are the clear target of the Defund Provision, but Congress failed to adequately define (1) the full scope of providers that qualify as “prohibited entities” and (2) the timing of the prohibition on federal reimbursements to such entities. Moreover, the Defund Provision constitutes a change that the States could not have anticipated when joining Medicaid. Throughout the sixty-year history of Medicaid, States — not the federal government — have determined whether providers “qualify” for the Medicaid program.  

In its motion for a preliminary injunction, the coalition underscores that:

• The Defund Provision is already impacting the States through increased administrative burdens and compliance costs. For example, the States have had to restructure their claims-processing infrastructure to try to accommodate the Defund Provision’s requirements.  
• The Defund Provision’s ambiguity has resulted in the States having to field questions from providers and draft guidance in an attempt to address the ambiguities.  
• The Defund Provision will also result in significant increases in the States’ healthcare expenses. For example, treatment for later-stage breast and cervical cancer is much more expensive than screenings and early or preventative treatment. Further, Planned Parenthood treats a high volume of patients, and other healthcare centers not targeted by the Defund Provision will not be able to absorb the influx of patients. 

In filing the motion for a preliminary injunction, Attorney General Bonta — along with the attorneys general of Connecticut and New York — lead the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the state of Pennsylvania. 

A copy of the motion for a preliminary injunction can be found here. In support of its motion for a preliminary injunction, the coalition also submitted a declaration from Megan L. Kavanaugh, Principal Research Scientist at the Guttmacher Institute. That declaration can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta secured a temporary restraining order late yesterday blocking the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from cutting off California and other states’ funding to administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) while briefing on their litigation continues. SNAP is a federally funded, state-administered program that provides billions of dollars in food assistance to tens of millions of low-income families across the country each year. In July 2025, Attorney General Bonta led a multistate coalition in suing USDA, arguing that its demand that states turn over SNAP data violates multiple federal privacy laws and the U.S. Constitution. The coalition later asked the court for emergency relief after USDA threatened to withhold crucial administrative funding that states depend on to run the SNAP program if the states do not turn over the demanded data.

“No Californian should have to choose between putting food on the table and allowing their personal, private data to be fed into the President’s mass surveillance database,” said Attorney General Bonta. “That is not what Californians agreed to when they signed up for the SNAP program. This court order is a first step in blocking the Trump Administration’s latest effort to bully states into breaking the law and breaking public trust. We will not turn over our residents’ personal, private data to be misused by this Administration.”

A copy of the order is available here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement on the decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to deny the Trump Administration’s motion to dismiss in State of California v. Donald Trump. On April 3, 2025, Attorney General Bonta co-led a coalition of 19 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration over Executive Order No. 14248 (Executive Order), an unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and un-American attempt to impose sweeping voting restrictions. On June 13, 2025, the coalition secured a preliminary injunction blocking unlawful provisions of the Executive Order. The preliminary injunction remains in effect following today’s decision. 

“I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Donald Trump is not king. He cannot unilaterally impose voting restrictions across the country — that’s why my fellow attorneys general and I took him to court earlier this year,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I’m pleased that the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has now emphatically rejected the Trump Administration’s effort to dismiss our lawsuit. We continue to believe in the strength of our case and remain as committed as ever to protecting the right to vote.” 

A copy of the decision can be found here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed an amicus brief in support of D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb’s lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful deployment of National Guard troops to the District of Columbia. Attorney General Bonta and Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in asserting that the deployment of National Guard troops without the consent of D.C. is unlawful, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. Domestic use of the military has long been recognized as antithetical to American values. While California and D.C. were the first places subjected to unlawful federalized deployments, President Trump has made clear that this is the beginning — not the end — of the military occupation of American cities. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to grant a preliminary injunction and make clear that the Constitution prohibits the use of soldiers as local law enforcement. 

“The President continues to use National Guard servicemembers to carry out his own personal political agenda — recklessly tearing down two-and-a-half-centuries of guardrails that have prevented the military from occupying American streets,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This is not a President who cares about public safety; instead, President Trump has undermined it at every turn, sending National Guard troops with no training to engage in civilian law enforcement and pulling them away from their work fighting wildfires and engaging in counter-drug enforcement at the border. I am proud to stand with 22 attorneys general in support of D.C.’s lawsuit, as my office continues to fight the unlawful federalization and deployment of military troops in California.”

The experience of California, as the first state to experience President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard without its Governor’s consent, serves as a warning of the harm caused by a continuous military presence in a state. For more than three months, federalized California National Guard troops have been deployed in California’s communities. During this time, the troops’ presence has stoked fear among Californians, causing the public to stay home, fail to report for work, and avoid areas where the military is deployed. The use of federalized National Guard troops has damaged trust between local law enforcement and the community, as troops have been tasked with civilian law enforcement and were widely present during immigration raids in the first few weeks of their deployment. These troops were diverted away from essential state functions, like fighting wildfires. In June 2025, the majority of California’s Guard’s specialized fire crews were diverted from their wildfire-fighting task force in the midst of peak fire season and instead deployed into the streets of Los Angeles. 

With California’s recent experience as a lesson, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that:

• Using the military for local law enforcement, as the President has done in the D.C., upsets the careful balance between civilian and military authority set forth in the Constitution.
• The deployment of National Guard troops infringes on the police powers reserved to States and localities. The Constitution establishes a federal government of limited, enumerated powers — general police power is not among them.  
• National Guard troops are not prepared to engage in civilian law enforcement, lacking training in criminal procedure, civil rights, criminal investigation, and de-escalation. This introduces complications and dangers to both the public and the troops engaging with them. 
• States need the National Guard to be available for vital natural disaster and security functions.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to holding President Trump and his administration accountable for overreaching their authority under the law and infringing on Californians’ constitutional rights. In June, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful orders to federalize the California National Guard and utilize National Guard troops and the Marines for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. That same week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted California emergency relief, blocking the federalization order and returning command of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom; that order is currently stayed by the Ninth Circuit pending appeal. In August, the Attorney General’s Office presented evidence of Posse Comitatus Act violations during a three-day trial before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Court subsequently granted a permanent injunction enjoining the Trump Administration from engaging in the same or similar activity in the future. The Court’s order is temporarily paused while the Ninth Circuit considers the federal government’s motion for a stay.

Attorneys General Bonta and Brown lead the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin in filing the brief. 

A copy of the amicus brief is available here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump Administration from imposing cruel new restrictions on access to public benefit programs based on immigration status while litigation continues. Programs include Head Start, childcare services for low-income people, adult education, mental health and substance use disorder programs, and shelters for at-risk youth and domestic violence survivors, among others. After filing a lawsuit in July 2025, the multistate coalition had subsequently secured an agreement temporarily preventing the Trump Administration from implementing various agency notices significantly expanding federal public benefit ineligibility based on immigration status before today, September 10, 2025. 

“With today’s decision, vital education, nutrition, and health programs like Head Start — and the families who rely on their services — can breathe a sigh of relief,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration continues to pull the rug out from under California families just trying to get by, but we’re fighting back. We’re grateful that a district court has put a stop to this cruel new directive while our litigation continues.” 

The decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island ensures that millions of families can continue to access critical services without fear of denial or disruption while our litigation continues. With this ruling, the court acknowledges that the Trump Administration likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution by issuing sweeping new mandates without lawful rulemaking, grossly misreading the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, and failing to consider the devastating impacts on states and communities.  

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

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell today co-led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) proposed federal rule that would eliminate veterans’ and their families’ access to abortion care. In 2022, the Biden Administration implemented the “Reproductive Health Services” Rule (the Rule), which currently allows veterans and their survivors and dependents to access abortion services at VA health care centers in situations where the patient’s life or health is threatened and in cases of self-reported rape or incest. The Rule also permits veterans and their survivors and dependents to access abortion counseling at VA health centers. After the Trump Administration indicated it was reviewing the Rule and held meetings with other stakeholders on the Rule, a coalition of attorneys general — including the Office of Attorney General Bonta — met with VA officials and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on April 8, 2025 to express why rolling back the Rule would cause harm to veterans and their families. On August 4, 2025, the Trump Administration published a proposed rule to formally undo the Biden Administration’s Rule. The comment letter is submitted in response to the VA’s invitation for public comment.  

“Earlier this year, my fellow attorneys general and I urged the Trump Administration to protect access to abortion care for veterans and their families in cases of rape, incest, and when the life or health of the woman is at risk. We also urged the Trump Administration to protect access to abortion counseling. Despite our commonsense positions, the Trump Administration has decided to continue its relentless attacks on reproductive healthcare,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As I have said before, medical decisions should be made by patients and their doctors — free from political interference. I’m proud to be co-leading my fellow attorneys general in calling on the Trump Administration to withdraw its proposed rule, which is both extreme and unjustified by any legal rationale.” 

On September 2, 2022, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, the Biden Administration’s VA announced the interim version of the Rule. On October 11, 2022, Attorney General Bonta led a coalition of 23 attorneys general in filing a comment letter supporting the VA’s efforts to increase reproductive freedom. After receiving public comment, the VA finalized the Rule on March 4, 2024. Since the Dobbs decision, at least 19 states have banned or restricted abortion care, while others are still proposing new restrictions.  

In the letter, the attorneys general write that: 

• The proposed rule presents an unclear standard as to when, if at all, VA physicians can provide abortion care. Specifically, the proposed rule’s preamble insists that it will allow VA physicians to provide lifesaving care — in circumstances “when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term” — while the proposed regulatory text bans abortion care for veterans entirely. Generally, where there is a discrepancy between the preamble and the regulatory text, the regulatory text controls. In addition, to the extent that the VA carves out an exception for the lives of pregnant survivors and dependents, it fails to set out a process by which individuals may take advantage of the exception.
• The proposed rule is extreme in its formulation and is out of step with existing abortion exceptions on the state and federal level. Although exceptions themselves are problematic and often difficult to administer, the VA’s proposed changes would mark a substantial and inhumane departure from decades of policy protecting the health and lives of pregnant patients and the autonomy of pregnant patients who have experienced rape and incest.
• The proposed rule is inadequately justified. It falsely claims that the VA does not have legal authority to provide abortion care, obfuscates other federal abortion policy in order to establish congressional intent for a VA abortion ban where there is none, and relies on political considerations instead of medical ones. 

Joining Attorney General Bonta in sending the comment letter are the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia. 

A copy of the comment letter can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta, leading a multistate coalition along with New York Attorney General Letitia James, filed an amicus brief opposing a new federal policy that mandates indefinite detention of many undocumented immigrants without the opportunity for a bond hearing. In a brief filed in Bautista v. Noem, the coalition challenges the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) unprecedented reinterpretation of immigration law, arguing it violates due process and federal statutes, and inflicts widespread harm on families, communities, and state economies. 

“The Trump Administration has created a mass deportation apparatus built around the abduction and incarceration of immigrants,” said Attorney General Bonta. “It’s inhumane — and illegal. We’re talking about individuals who have lived and worked in the U.S. for years, who have had families here and become vital parts of their communities. They deserve to be treated with respect, and they have the right to the due process afforded to them by the Constitution.”  

For decades, immigrants living in the U.S. who were placed in removal proceedings had the right to request a bond hearing — a chance to argue for their release while their immigration case was pending. DHS’s new policy eliminates that right for those who entered the country without inspection, mandating their indefinite detention regardless of individual circumstances. Many of these individuals have lived in the U.S. for years and now face confinement in often overcrowded, unsafe, and unsanitary facilities for months or even years. As DHS expands its enforcement efforts, millions of additional immigrants could be subjected to mandatory detention under this policy. 

More than nine million U.S. citizens, including over four million children, live with at least one undocumented family member. Studies show that the detention of a parent significantly increases the risk of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder in children, and deepens economic instability for entire households. Fear of detention already deters immigrant families from seeking health care, food assistance, and even reporting crimes, undermining both public safety and public health. The attorneys general argue that the mandatory detention policy only exacerbates this chilling effect.

Undocumented immigrants also constitute nearly five percent of the U.S. workforce and play critical roles in industries such as agriculture and construction. In 2023, undocumented-led households paid nearly $90 billion in taxes and contributed almost $300 billion in consumer spending. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that unnecessarily detaining these workers disrupts the labor force and undermines local and state economies. The attorneys general also argue this policy will come at a substantial cost to taxpayers. In 2024, immigration detention cost U.S. taxpayers $3.4 billion – roughly $152 per detainee per day. By contrast, DHS’s own Alternatives to Detention program costs less than $4.20 per day and is equally effective in ensuring court appearances. The attorneys general argue that DHS’s shift away from these cost-effective alternatives wastes taxpayer dollars while delivering no added benefit.

The attorneys general also emphasize that indefinite detention severely limits detainees’ ability to access legal representation, particularly when they are transferred to remote facilities far from their families and attorneys. This drastically reduces their chances of obtaining legal relief, even when they are eligible to remain in the country. In addition to being inhumane, denying individuals the opportunity for a bond hearing contradicts longstanding legal precedent and fundamental due process protections. The coalition emphasizes that individualized assessments are standard in both civil and criminal proceedings, and immigrants should not be treated differently simply because of their legal status.

The attorneys general urge the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to grant partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs and strike down DHS’s unlawful policy.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Bonta released the California Department of Justice’s fourth report on immigration detention facilities operating in California where noncitizens are detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The report is intended to provide members of the public and policymakers with critical information about the conditions that people in civil immigration detention in California are subjected to. A copy of the report is available here. A copy of the executive summary is also available in Spanish here. 

Attorney General Bonta and Attorney General James are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia in filing the amicus brief. 

A copy of the amicus brief is available here. 

On August 5, 2025, the Trump Administration ordered the National Guard to be federalized and deployed for an additional 90 days

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today asked a court to block the Trump Administration’s order federalizing and deploying 300 members of California’s National Guard for an additional 90 days and to order the Trump Administration to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom. Long before the 60-day timeframe of the original deployment order had expired, the sporadic episodes of civil unrest that the Trump Administration relied on as shaky justification for the federalization of these troops had abated. They have not since reoccurred. Despite this, on August 5, 2025, the Trump Administration issued a new order to federalize and deploy 300 remaining California National Guard troops. If allowed to stand, this new deployment order would ensure that California’s residents will remain under a form of military occupation until November 5 — through Election Day. 

“The Trump Administration continues to hold our National Guard servicemembers hostage as part of an unprecedented attempt to militarize American streets,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The initial federalization and deployment of these troops was unjustified — their redeployment for an additional 90 days is absurd. We’re asking the court to block implementation of this latest order, and we are confident that given the facts — or lack thereof — underpinning this order, the court will agree.”

“The timing of Trump’s extension of the National Guard soldiers isn’t coincidental — he’s holding onto soldiers through Election Day. There was never a need and there is not a need now for soldiers to be deployed against their communities,” said Governor Newsom. “The federal government hasn’t even tried to justify keeping the military in Los Angeles because they can’t. The reality is this — they want to continue their intimidation tactics to scare Californians into submission.” 

Since July 1, 2025, the Trump Administration has drawn down the use of federalized National Guard troops without issue until just 300 troops remained. Yet, without justification, on August 5, 2025, the Trump Administration issued a new order federalizing 300 National Guard troops for an additional 90 days. This order is neither supported by the law nor the facts. The Trump Administration cannot establish — and has not even attempted to establish — that there was an invasion, rebellion, or inability to execute federal law anywhere in California on August 5, 2025. 

During their initial deployment, National Guard troops participated in low-risk federal law enforcement operations in Los Angeles and communities over 100 miles away. Far from being deployed in response to threats to federal personnel or property, federal law enforcement officials routinely requested and received the assistance of federalized troops for operations as a “safety measure,” even if the military’s risk assessment showed that there was not any threat that would require military support. Moreover, these troops were often called on to engage in civilian law enforcement activities, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. In the first weeks of their deployment, a Trump Administration official estimated that federalized National Guard troops accompanied federal agents on up to 75% of immigration arrests.

In their motion, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom ask the court to issue a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the Trump Administration’s August 5 deployment order and returning control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to holding President Trump and his administration accountable for overreaching their authority under the law and infringing on Californians’ constitutional rights. In June, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful orders to federalize the California National Guard and utilize National Guard troops and the Marines for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. In August, the Attorney General’s Office presented evidence of Posse Comitatus Act violations during a three-day trial before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and earlier today, that court granted an injunction permanently enjoining the Trump Administration from engaging in the same or similar activity in the future.

A copy of the motion for a preliminary injunction is available here.