Federal Accountability

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and California Governor Gavin Newsom today sued President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth in response to their orders seeking to federalize the California National Guard for 60 days under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. In the early hours of Sunday morning, the U.S. Department of Defense, at the direction of the President, redirected hundreds of 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 intends to deploy 2,000 troops from across the state, an inflammatory escalation unsupported by conditions on the ground. In a lawsuit being filed today, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom will ask the court to hold unlawful and set aside the President’s order federalizing the National Guard by way of a rarely used law, arguing that such action exceeds the federal government’s authority under the law and violates the Tenth Amendment.

“President Trump’s order calling federalized National Guard troops into Los Angeles – over the objections of the Governor and local law enforcement – is unnecessary and counterproductive. It’s also deeply unfair to the members of the National Guard who are hard at work every day protecting our state, preparing for and responding to emergencies, and training so that, if called, they can fight our nation’s wars,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Let me be clear: There is no invasion. There is no rebellion. The President is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends. Federalizing the California National Guard is an abuse of the President’s authority under the law – and not one we take lightly. We’re asking a court to put a stop to the unlawful, unprecedented order.”

“Donald Trump is creating fear and terror by failing to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and overstepping his authority. This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “Every governor, red or blue, should reject this outrageous overreach. This is beyond incompetence — this is him intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities, and endangering the principles of our great democracy. It is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism. We will not let this stand.” 

On Friday and Saturday, June 6 and 7, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted multiple immigration raids in downtown Los Angeles. These raids were met with multiple protests. Following threats to send in the National Guard from several Trump Administration officials, on the evening of June 7, President Trump issued a formal memorandum entitled “Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions,” purporting to authorize the Department of Defense to call up 2,000 California National Guard personnel into federal service for a period of 60 days. In implementing this directive, the Department of Defense circumvented authorization from the Governor and began deploying National Guard troops to Los Angeles over the objections of local law enforcement actively on the ground. Notably, by the time the National Guard arrived Sunday morning, the protests had dissipated and streets were quiet, but soon after the National Guard arrived, tensions reignited, leading to the very sort of unrest the National Guard was supposedly sent in to quell. Concerningly, President Trump has already made clear his intention to expand the use of these National Guard troops to conduct interior civil immigration enforcement activities normally conducted by civil immigration law enforcement officers, creating fear and terror in California communities.

President Trump’s unprecedented order attempts to usurp state authority and resources via 10 U.S.C. § 12406, a statute that has been invoked on its own only once before in modern history and for highly unusual circumstances — when President Richard Nixon called upon the National Guard to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service Strike. This is also the first time since 1965 — when President Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators — that a president has activated a state’s National Guard without a request from the state’s governor. Here, Governor Newsom did not request that the state’s National Guard be federalized, as local authorities were managing the situation on the ground, and openly expressed concern that bringing in the National Guard could inflame the situation. After the President plowed ahead with his order, the Governor sent a letter to Secretary Hegseth requesting that the Department of Defense rescind its unlawful deployment of troops in the state and return them to his command. 

In a lawsuit being filed today, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom will ask the court to hold that the President and Department of Defense’s orders federalizing the California National Guard are unlawful, arguing that:

• The federalization of the California National Guard deprives California of resources to protect itself and its citizens, and of critical responders in the event of a state emergency. 
• 10 U.S.C. 12406 requires that the Governor consent to federalization of the National Guard, which Governor Newsom was not given the opportunity to do prior to their deployment.
• The President’s unlawful order infringes on Governor Newsom’s role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the state’s sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard in the absence of a lawful invocation of federal power.

A copy of the lawsuit is available here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland largely blocking the Trump Administration from dismantling AmeriCorps while multistate litigation proceeds. AmeriCorps is an independent federal agency tasked with engaging Americans in meaningful community-based service that directly addresses the country’s educational, public safety, and environmental needs. In February 2025, the Trump Administration issued an executive order directing every federal agency to plan to reduce their workforce and scale back their functions. AmeriCorps subsequently shuttered its National Civilian Community Corps program and placed at least 85% of its permanent workforce on administrative leave, notifying these employees that they would be terminated effective June 24, 2025. And at the end of April, California received notice from the federal government that its AmeriCorps grant programs had been terminated. Attorney General Bonta, along with the attorneys general of Maryland, Delaware, and Colorado, led a coalition of 23 attorneys general and two states in suing to stop the dismantling of the agency. The District Court’s order grants the states’ request to restore AmeriCorps programs, including the volunteer servicemembers who support them, in California and in the other plaintiff states and reverse the shuttering of the National Civilian Community Corps program, while denying preliminary relief to address the layoff of AmeriCorps’ permanent staff.

“AmeriCorps volunteers represent the best parts of America. They are selfless and eager to serve their country – but the reality is, many of them wouldn’t be able to do so without the programs supported by AmeriCorps,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today’s decision ensures this vital service work that brings volunteers directly into California communities will continue while we make our case in court. We will not stop fighting until we secure a permanent decision protecting AmeriCorps and the thousands of hardworking volunteers who have dedicated themselves to public service.”

BACKGROUND

AmeriCorps supports national and state community service programs by providing opportunities for Americans to serve their communities and by awarding grants to local, state, and national organizations and agencies which use funding to address critical community needs. These organizations and agencies use AmeriCorps funding to recruit, place, and supervise AmeriCorps members nationwide. AmeriCorps members and volunteers have connected veterans to essential services, fought the opioid epidemic, helped older adults age with dignity, rebuilt communities after disasters, and improved the physical and mental well-being of millions of Americans.  

In 2024, more than 6,150 California members served at least 1,200 locations, including schools, food banks, homeless shelters, health clinics, youth centers, veterans’ facilities, and other nonprofit and faith-based organizations. AmeriCorps invested more than $133 million in federal funding to California that same year to support cost-effective community solutions, working with local partners on the ground to help communities tackle their toughest challenges.

A copy of the court’s order and opinion can be found here and here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Bonta today issued a statement after a judge granted California's request for dismissal to allow it to appeal its case challenging the Trump Administration’s illegal tariffs following a hearing last week. The hearing centered around the Trump Administration’s motion asking that the case be transferred to the Court of International Trade — a motion that California opposed. Rather than transferring the case to the Court of International Trade, California asked the judge to dismiss the case for the purpose of seeking appellate review of the question about where this case should be brought. The dismissal today keeps the case in California and allows California to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which it plans to do immediately. 

“Today, our lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s disastrous and illegal tariffs was allowed to remain in California pending our incoming appeal. We strongly believe this case belongs in federal district court and are pleased the court considered our wishes in dismissing this case so we have the opportunity to seek review. Our argument is straightforward: Trump doesn’t have the authority to impose these destructive tariffs — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act simply does not authorize tariffs,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We remain confident in the strength of our case and look forward to continuing to fight for California's vibrant economy, businesses, workers, and families.”

On April 16, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs without the consent of Congress. Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom also filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Oregon v. Trump, a case challenging President Trump’s illegal imposition of tariffs. The tariffs challenged under California’s current lawsuit are projected to cost California consumers $25 billion dollars and result in the loss of over 64,000 jobs. The totality of the Trump Administration's tariff regime is expected to cost households approximately $40 billion. 

A copy of the order can be found here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Friday, as part of a coalition of 20 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Shilling v. Trump in support of a challenge to President Trump’s executive order prohibiting transgender servicemembers from serving in the military in any capacity. The plaintiffs in this case are seven active-duty servicemembers, one individual seeking enlistment, and an organizational plaintiff with transgender military members. In March, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a preliminary injunction preventing the order from going into effect; it was later appealed by the federal government, and the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal. In their brief, the attorneys general argue that the executive order undermines our nation’s military, jeopardizes the ability of the National Guard to respond effectively to natural disasters and to ensure the states’ security, and threatens states’ efforts to protect the rights of their LGBTQ+ communities.

“The Trump Administration’s unlawful attempt to single out and discriminate against transgender servicemembers is an insult to all who serve and frankly un-American,” said Attorney General Bonta. “At the California DOJ we remain committed to ensuring that all Californians are free from discrimination and harassment and will continue to uphold and protect the rights of our transgender community.”

California has the nation’s largest concentration of military personnel as well as military bases. If allowed to stand, this executive order would harm California’s interests. California relies heavily on the California National Guard which provides critical services for the state, including responding to national security threats and natural disasters, like the recent devastating fires in Los Angeles. Transgender servicemembers, like all other servicemembers, are qualified individuals who volunteer their lives to service, protecting and providing for our nation in times of need.

In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to affirm the preliminary injunction, arguing that banning transgender individuals from military service will:

• Harm National Guard recruitment efforts, jeopardizing states’ security and readiness.
• Undermine states’ institutions and efforts to uphold and protect the rights of their LGBTQ+ communities.
• Harm the states’ transgender veterans, active servicemembers, and those who wish to serve.
• Weaken the military’s role as an inclusive institution by imposing discriminatory policies.

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Washington, Vermont, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, 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 Pacito v. Trump in support of a challenge to the Trump Administration's unlawful suspension of refugee admissions and funding under the United States Refugee Assistance Program. In the brief, the coalition urges the U.S. Court of Appeals to affirm the preliminary injunctions issued by the District Court in Washington. This is the States’ third amicus brief in the case. 

A copy of the brief is available here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit to stop the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) from: (1) terminating grants for scientific research that seeks to promote and understand diversity in higher education and the workforce, and (2) imposing a 15% cap on indirect cost reimbursements for research projects. From creating AI technology that predicts weather patterns to protect communities, to developing sustainable solutions for environmental and economic challenges, to making power grids more sustainable, NSF-funded research at American universities has ensured the United States’ status as a global leader in scientific innovation. In the complaint, Attorney General Bonta and 15 other attorneys general ask the court to bar NSF from implementing the terminations and cost cap as arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.

“President Trump wants to make America’s universities second tier with his backwards efforts to slash research funding that has kept us on the cutting edge of science and innovation,” said Attorney General Bonta. “For more than 50 years, Congress has expressly authorized the National Science Foundation to train up the next generation of talent and invest in the infrastructure necessary to keep our position as a global leader in STEM. With President Trump’s latest round of indiscriminate funding cuts, America is poised to fall behind its competitors at a critical moment in the global technology race. We’re suing to stop him.”

At the direction of President Trump, NSF is taking aim at the twin pillars sustaining the United States’ STEM preeminence. First, NSF announced a departure from Congress’s longstanding policy to promote a robust STEM workforce that draws in underrepresented populations. Second, NSF announced that it would slash support for the infrastructure necessary for cutting edge American research. These actions violate the law and jeopardize America’s longstanding global leadership in STEM.  

Since 1980, Congress has maintained that for the United States to maintain its competitive edge, the nation would need to encourage and prepare people from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM to acquire skills and pursue careers in science and engineering fields.  And it has directed, empowered, and funded NSF to carry this policy out – with significant success. Between 1995 and 2017, the number of women in science and engineering occupations, or with science or engineering degrees, doubled; minorities, meanwhile, went from representing about 15% of those groups to about 35%.  

To conduct NSF research, universities must maintain and staff substantial infrastructure, such as cutting-edge laboratories, advanced computer systems and networks, appropriate security, and specialized heating or cooling systems. Because the costs associated with such infrastructure often are not attributable solely to one federally sponsored research project, the federal government negotiates indirect cost rates that ensure research grants are sufficient to actually sustain university research efforts. By indiscriminately slashing indirect cost rates, NSF is repeating the unlawful practices of the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy, which districts courts have already enjoined.  

In California, millions of dollars in funding are at risk across the California State University, University of California, and public community college systems. Many innovations — like the internet, GPS, and MRI technology — trace their origins to research initially funded by NSF. Without NSF funding, many California colleges and universities will be forced to substantially reduce or stop altogether potentially groundbreaking programs and research projects.

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Hawaii, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Washington in filing the lawsuit. 

A copy of the complaint is available here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granting a preliminary injunction in a multistate lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful mass firing of U.S. Department of Education employees and the transfer of core statutory functions to other departments. These actions have devastated the Department of Education’s ability to meet its statutory obligations across numerous programs — direct funding for K-12 education, student aid, services for students with disabilities, civil rights enforcement, vocational training, and more.      

“As long as the Trump Administration persists in violating the law, we will continue to hold him accountable,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The firing of Department of Education employees and outsourcing of core statutory functions, like the administration of federal student loans, violate the Administrative Procedure Act and are unconstitutional. I am encouraged by the court's ruling today restoring fired Education Department employees to their positions while our case progresses. We will continue to fight to ensure the unlawful and absurd dismantling of the Department of Education is reversed — permanently. Our students deserve better.”     

On March 11, the Department of Education initiated a mass termination impacting nearly 50% of the Department’s employees, as part of the Trump Administration’s “final mission” to dismantle the Department. The mass firings were not accompanied by any reasoning to explain why these employees — and indeed, some whole teams — were targeted. The rationale is nevertheless clear — the Trump Administration believes the Department should not exist and is using these firings as a tool in furtherance of that goal. President Trump’s directive for Education Secretary Linda McMahon to take all necessary steps to dismantle the Department is further evidence that the firings are part of a broader effort to undermine the Department’s ability to carry out its most vital, congressionally-mandated functions. These steps include transferring the administration of federal student loans to the Small Business Administration, which recently fired 40% of its workers, and of special needs and nutritional programs to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.    

A copy of the decision is available here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a coalition of 21 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security in support of a challenge to the closure of three oversight offices at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). These congressionally mandated oversight offices are built into DHS as safeguards to ensure that the public has avenues for raising concerns about invasions of privacy, racial profiling, and human rights abuses committed in the name of protecting the homeland. In their brief, the attorneys general urge the district court to issue a preliminary injunction halting the closure of these offices and restoring staffing and funding. 

“The Trump Administration does not have the authority to unilaterally dissolve congressionally mandated oversight offices that provide vital, sometimes life-saving channels for individuals and communities to interact with DHS,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The closure of these offices is a devastating loss for California residents who rely on these offices to resolve problems with immigration benefits, address unsafe conditions in detention facilities, and investigate civil liberties violations and human rights abuses by DHS employees. I respectfully urge the court to issue a preliminary injunction and re-open these offices.”

On March 21, 2025, DHS and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem shut down the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Ombudsman’s Office, and the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO). These three oversight offices were created by Congress to exercise oversight of various DHS programs and operations; to prevent and address civil rights violations by agency employees; and to provide direct case assistance to noncitizens, their employers, and their families who interact with DHS. Prior to the closure of these offices, DHS began removing investigative records and other documents about these offices from its website. DHS subsequently announced plans to terminate virtually all their employees, while directing them to immediately cease investigating complaints and performing other statutorily required work. Additionally, DHS publicly acknowledged that it intended to dissolve these offices completely, explaining that it did so because the offices had “obstructed immigration enforcement by adding bureaucratic hurdles.”

In the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urges the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to grant a preliminary injunction halting the closure of these offices, arguing that:

• DHS exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority in unilaterally shutting down congressionally mandated offices.
• The elimination of CIS Ombudsman’s Office will harm residents seeking legal immigration benefits such as work and student visas, work authorizations, and green cards.
• The dismantling of OIDO will harm individuals detained in immigration facilities who rely on OIDO to examine and take action to protect individuals from unsanitary, inhumane, and dangerous conditions of immigration detention.

• The closure of CRCL will harm states’ residents, eliminating vital oversight and transparency, eroding protections previously implemented by CRCL such as language access, accessibility for disabled individuals, and confidentiality protections for victims of trafficking and family violence.

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

A copy of the brief can be found here.

Court order continues blocking termination of federal funds appropriated by Congress

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released a statement in response to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction that continues blocking the unlawful termination of $11 billion in critical public health funding by the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Among its findings, the court concluded that the federal government had “clearly usurped Congress’s authority to spend and allocate funds.” The preliminary injunction is in effect with respect to the plaintiff states and the District of Columbia until further order by the court. 

“Left unchallenged, California alone would lose more than $972 million from these illegal cancellations by HHS. We will not allow that to happen,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We are pleased that, after granting our motion for a temporary restraining order last month, the court has now issued a preliminary injunction that ensures this critical federal funding can continue flowing to our state and local public health agencies while our litigation proceeds. Critically, the court also noted that we are likely to succeed on the merits of our claims.” 

On April 1, Attorney General Bonta announced co-leading a coalition of 23 states and the District of Columbia in filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s HHS and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. over the unlawful termination of public health funding. Beginning on March 24, 2025, HHS abruptly, with no advance notice or warning, issued termination notices to state and local public health agencies across the country, purporting to end federal funding for grants that provide essential support for a wide range of urgent public health needs, including identifying, tracking, and addressing infectious diseases; ensuring access to immunizations; and modernizing critical public health infrastructure. 

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, the lawsuit alleges that the termination notices are unlawful in several ways under the Administrative Procedure Act. The federal funding was appropriated by Congress to ensure the United States is better prepared for future public health threats. According to the Trump Administration, funding for the grants is “no longer necessary” because the grants were appropriated through one or more COVID-19 related laws, and the COVID-19 pandemic is over. The coalition secured the temporary restraining order on April 3.

A copy of the court’s order 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 Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump in support of a challenge to the Trump Administration’s executive orders targeting programs that incorporate equity, inclusion, diversity, and accessibility (Anti-DEI EOs). In their brief, the attorneys general urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to uphold the district court’s decision granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.  

“In California we recognize the importance of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, especially when it comes to ensuring that all Californians have an equal opportunity to thrive and feel empowered to contribute to society,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration’s attempt to remove programs and policies that combat discrimination and promote economic and social benefits is frankly un-American. Programs and practices that incorporate diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility are critical to states, as they not only drive innovation and economic growth, but also provide essential benefits to ensure a safe and welcoming environment for all.”

In January 2025, President Trump issued two Executive Orders targeting “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) and “equity-related grants or contracts.” While the Anti-DEIA EOs did not define these or other key terms, they directed: (1) executive agencies to terminate equity-related grants or contracts; (2) agencies to require contractors and grantees to certify that they do not run DEIA programs that, in the Administration’s view, violate federal antidiscrimination laws; and (3) the U.S. Attorney General to take steps to discourage private-sector use of DEIA, including deterring such initiatives and promoting compliance investigations. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland later issued a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claims that the challenged provisions were unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment and infringed on the plaintiffs’ freedom of expression in violation of the First Amendment.

In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to affirm the district court’s decision granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that:

• DEIA principles and practices are grounded in longstanding antidiscrimination laws and provide important benefits to states, their residents, and their businesses.
• The vague and unclear directives set forth in the challenged provisions harm states, which have begun to receive notices from federal agencies that threaten billions of dollars in federal funding for essential services like basic K-12 education, highway infrastructure, public health, workforce development, and environmental protections.
• The challenged provisions create a chilling effect on private entities, which must decide whether, in the face of these vague terms and threats, to continue to provide essential services upon which states’ residents rely.
• Abandonment of these programs will cause immeasurable harm to states and their residents, who rely on practices and programs that advance and support diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility to combat discrimination and to secure extensive economic, social, and educational benefits.

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

A copy of the brief can be found here.