Federal Accountability

Co-leads coalition of 18 attorneys general in filing amicus brief to support plaintiffs in PFLAG v. Trump 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 18 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland supporting the motion for a preliminary injunction sought by Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality, and individual patients and their families in their lawsuit against the Trump Administration. On February 4, 2025, PFLAG challenged President Trump’s Executive Orders 14168 and 14187 targeting transgender individuals by stating that gender identity was a “false” idea and by attempting to strip federal funding from institutions that provide life-saving gender affirming care for young people under the age of 19. The attorneys general argue that these actions blatantly and unlawfully discriminate against transgender youth based on their identity, and urge the Court to grant PFLAG’s motion for a preliminary injunction. 

“Health care decisions, including gender-affirming care, should be made by patients, families, and doctors, free from political interference,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As we continue to face relentless attacks on transgender rights, my office remains unwavering in our commitment to defending the rights of transgender individuals as they seek to live their lives as their authentic selves. Alongside attorneys general nationwide, I am proud to submit this amicus brief today in defense of the law and against the federal government’s unlawful, hate-mongering attempts to strip away the right to access gender-affirming care.”

The states submitting today’s amicus brief have enacted their own laws, policies, and protections for transgender residents, including transgender youth under the age of 19. California law, including the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51, and Government Code section 11135, prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Electing to refuse services to a class of individuals based on their protected status, such as withholding services from transgender individuals based on their gender identity or their diagnosis of gender dysphoria, while offering such services to cisgender individuals, is discrimination. 

In today’s amicus brief, the attorneys general argue that there is considerable medical evidence showing that gender-affirming care improves the health outcomes for individuals with gender dysphoria, a medical condition characterized by significant distress that occurs when an individual’s gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth. Denying this care can have tragic consequences on patients’ physical and mental well-being. A recent study conducted by the University of Washington found that in individuals ages 13-20, receiving gender-affirming care was associated with 60% lower odds of moderate to severe depression and 73% lower odds of having suicidal thoughts over a 12-month period. 

The attorneys general also argue that the Administration’s Executive Orders have sown chaos and confusion among gender-affirming care providers and caused anxiety and fear among transgender youth and their families. The Trevor Project, which provides confidential counseling to LGBTQ+ youth, reported a 700% increase in access to its crisis services since the Presidential election and a 46% increase in volume following Inauguration Day. In the immediate aftermath of the Executive Orders, facilities across the country halted gender-affirming care for young people, citing fears of losing federal funding for healthcare unrelated to gender-affirming care.    

While gender-affirming care remains available in California, the Executive Orders have undeniably and unacceptably scared providers and patients here and across the country. Shortly after PFLAG filed their lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta joined 14 other attorneys general in issuing a statement reaffirming their commitment to protecting access to gender-affirming care, reminding providers that federal courts have stopped the Administration from withholding federal funding from institutions, including ones that provide gender-affirming care, and making clear that no federal law prohibits or criminalizes gender-affirming care.  

In submitting this brief, which is co-led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, and Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, are the attorneys general from Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. 

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here. 

Gutting of CFPB creates a gap in regulation greater than before the 2008 financial crisis

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 23 attorneys general in submitting an amicus brief in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). In the brief, the attorneys general argue that the shuttering of the CFPB would cause catastrophic harm to consumer protections nationwide, leaving state agencies with the sole responsibility to protect consumers. 

“The CFPB was created to protect consumers from being taken advantage of by corporations. As the backbone of federal consumer financial protections, the CFPB is a force multiplier for California’s consumer protection efforts, working to protect consumers from fraud, abuse, and unfair business practices and returning over $20 billion to Americans since its creation,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration’s takeover of the CFPB is an effort to destroy the agency responsible for overseeing the mortgage markets, stopping predatory debt collectors, and preventing American families from being exploited by big banks and payday lenders. From sharing complaints and trend data, to providing training, and partnering on joint investigations and litigations, the loss of CFPB’s partnership has devastating and deep implications for California and households across the nation." 

After examining the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis, Congress concluded the crisis resulted in part from the failure of federal banking and other regulators to address significant consumer protection issues detrimental to both consumers and the safety and soundness of the banking system. In direct response to these events, Congress established the CFPB and tasked it with enforcing numerous federal consumer protection statutes and enacting regulations to further these efforts. For over a decade, the CFPB has served as an invaluable partner to state attorneys general and state banking regulators, both by working to protect consumers against fraudulent and abusive practices and by advancing a fair and level playing field in consumer financial markets by issuing regulations under federal law. 

In the last month, the Trump Administration has taken a series of actions intended to debilitate the CFPB, including issuing a suspension of work across the agency, terminating probationary employees, and announcing a decision not to draw additional funding from the Federal Reserve. These actions appear to be part of a unilateral effort to permanently shut down the agency, including programs and operations mandated by federal law. 

In the brief, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the attorneys general argue the haphazard and chaotic shuttering of the CFPB: 

• Has caused and will continue to cause irreparable harm to the wellbeing of consumers and the states’ own enforcement efforts. 
• Leaves no oversight over large national banks. 
• Rapidly and substantially increases the burden on state agencies to protect consumers. 

For example, one of the most significant losses associated with the CFPB’s shuttering is the loss of their consumer-complaint system, which fields approximately 25,000 consumer complaints about financial products and services each week. This system allows the CFPB to identify and prioritize complaints where a consumer is at risk of imminent home foreclosure and then refer consumers to housing counselors to help them avoid losing their home.

Additionally, the CFPB is the sole federal regulator of nonbank mortgage lenders, and the sole federal entity that is statutorily authorized to supervise and bring enforcement actions against national banks in connection with “abusive” practices. Since 2022, California has referred nearly 4,000 consumers to the CFPB in circumstances where the Bureau is best positioned to provide the assistance needed. 

The CFPB’s sudden gutting also means that there will be essentially no oversight of very large banks, such as JPMorgan and Wells Fargo, for their compliance with consumer financial-protection laws. Very large financial institutions that compete with state-chartered banks will have the freedom to loosen their regulatory compliance and profit accordingly — to the detriment of consumers and competing banks and credit unions — as was seen in the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. 

In filing the brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New York, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, 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, as part of a coalition of 19 attorneys general, today announced filing an amicus brief in Pacito v. Trump in support of a challenge to the suspension of refugee entry and application processing, and the stop work orders for refugee resettlement agencies. In their brief, the attorneys general argue that the Trump Administration's Refugee Ban and Refugee Funding Suspension are unlawful, misrepresent the concerns and interests of states, and undermine states’ ongoing efforts to successfully assimilate and integrate newly arrived refugees.

“The foundation of our nation was built by people seeking to create a better life away from persecution,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Refugees are not a burden — they're a benefit to states. Refugees contribute to our communities both socially and economically as business owners, doctors, teachers, and neighbors. In California, we are home to approximately 50,000 refugee entrepreneurs who bring in an estimated $1.9 billion in business income collectively. The actions by the Trump Administration are unlawful and directly undermine the efforts of states like California to welcome people into our communities.”

Each year, thousands of refugees are admitted into the United States and welcomed into communities across the country where they can connect with services, resources, and members of their family or cultural community; these resources help them not just adjust but thrive. During the first Trump Administration, President Trump issued an executive order requiring states and towns to opt in if they wanted to resettle refugees; despite the order being quickly enjoined, 42 states and more than 100 mayors elected to opt in. States recognize the benefits of refugee resettlement and are proud to be home to large and diverse refugee populations, whose presence not only enriches the social fabric of our states and local communities, but also promotes a vibrant economy.

The Refugee Ban, which imposes by executive order an indefinite suspension on all refugee entry and refugee application processing, conflicts with the established Refugee Act by suspending entry and final approvals even for “follow-to-join” refugees — the spouses or unmarried under-21-year-old children of admitted refugees — despite Congress’s judgment that those persons “shall” be entitled to admission so long as they are not specifically barred on other grounds.

The Refugee Funding Suspension, which relies on the President's executive order regarding foreign aid, suspends federal funding for resettlement agencies that help refugees apply for admission and help refugees who have been admitted into our country and are already present in the states. The suspension directly prevents agencies from fulfilling their statutorily mandated task of providing basic needs and ensuring economic self-sufficiency and effective resettlement of refugees.

In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to grant a preliminary injunction preventing this order from going into effect, arguing that both the Refugee Ban and the Refugee Funding Suspension are unlawful and:

• Conflict and misrepresent states interests, ignoring states’ existing role in the distribution of refugees before their placements; and
• Harm states by disrupting critical work to assimilate and integrate refugees by depriving them of basic needs and essential services.

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

A copy of the brief can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a coalition of 20 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in Talbott v. Trump in support of a challenge to President Trump’s executive order attempting to prohibit transgender servicemembers from serving in the military in any capacity. The plaintiffs in this case are six active-duty servicemembers and two individuals seeking enlistment. In the 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 states’ security, and threatens states’ efforts to protect the rights of their LGBTQ+ communities.

“Today we are filing an amicus brief to protect the rights of the hard-working military servicemembers who have dedicated their life to service and to protecting our lives and our country. The Trump Administration’s decision to single out and discriminate against transgender servicemembers is an insult to all who serve; it’s also unlawful,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As home to approximately 2.8 million LGBTQ+ individuals, California will continue to stand up for the rights of our transgender community as they seek to live their lives as their authentic selves.”

California has the nation’s largest concentration of military personnel as well as military bases. If allowed to stand, this executive order would substantially impact California’s interests. California relies heavily on the California National Guard, which provides critical services for the state. This includes 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. District Court for the District of Columbia to grant a preliminary injunction preventing this order from going into effect, 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; and
• 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 Vermont, Washington, 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.

Musk was never elected, nominated, or confirmed — an affront to the U.S. Constitution

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 14 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit that challenges Elon Musk’s unlawful exercise of power. In today’s lawsuit, the attorneys general argue that Mr. Musk, an unconfirmed, unelected government employee, is exercising authority that exceeds what the U.S. Constitution permits. In his commanding of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the lawsuit alleges, Mr. Musk is acting with at least as much authority as a “principal officer of the United States” — a position that only Congress can create and one that requires Senate confirmation. The lawsuit alleges that, by acting as a “principal officer,” Mr. Musk is acting in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause, and the coalition seeks to immediately halt this unlawful exercise of power. 

“Elon Musk does not occupy a position that Congress created or that the Senate confirmed — Mr. Musk occupies a position the President made up. This is a clear and dangerous effort to bypass the nomination and confirmation process required under the Constitution. DOGE’s ransacking of federal agencies has sown tremendous chaos, instilled distrust among the American people, and has caused deep harm to our country,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Like a bull in a china shop, Mr. Musk is wielding an enormous amount of illegitimized power over sensitive systems and important government programs that are vital to the American way of life.”

In the lawsuit filed today, the attorneys general argue that Mr. Musk has unraveled federal agencies, accessed sensitive data, and caused widespread disruption for state and local governments, as well as critical systems American people rely on daily. By disrupting billions of dollars in federal funding essential for law enforcement, healthcare, education, and other critical services, Mr. Musk’s actions harm the states, including California. 

In filing today's lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.  

A copy of the complaint can be found here. A copy of the request for a TRO can be found here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, along with the attorneys general of New Jersey, Massachusetts, Delaware, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New York, and Vermont, and the City and County of San Francisco, issued a joint statement in response to a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granting a preliminary injunction against President Trump’s unconstitutional executive order terminating birthright citizenship. On January 21, 2025, Attorney General Bonta, New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell led a coalition of 19 states in filing a lawsuit challenging the order.

“President Trump may believe that he is above the law, but today’s preliminary injunction sends a clear message: He is not a king, and he cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen. 

“The President and his allies made clear long before he was sworn in that they would pursue this illegal action, and our coalition was prepared to challenge it as soon as President Trump fulfilled this unconstitutional campaign promise on Inauguration Day.

“We immediately stood up for our Constitution, for the rule of law, and for American children across the country who would have been deprived of their constitutional rights – and today we delivered for them. This is not yet over, and we will continue to fight every single step of the way until President Trump is permanently prevented from trampling on the Fourteenth Amendment rights of all Americans.”

President Trump issued an executive order on January 20, 2025, fulfilling his campaign promise to end birthright citizenship, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 1401 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. To stop the President’s unlawful action, which would have harmed hundreds of thousands of American children and their families, the coalition sued in the District of Massachusetts to invalidate the executive order and to enjoin any actions taken to implement it. The states requested immediate relief to prevent the President’s order from taking effect. The request was granted by Judge Leo Sorokin. 

Birthright citizenship dates back centuries—including to pre-Civil War America. Although the Supreme Court’s notorious decision in Dred Scott denied birthright citizenship to the descendants of slaves, the post-Civil War United States adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to protect citizenship for children born in this country. As the filings explain, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that birthright citizenship does not depend on the immigration status of the baby’s parents.

If allowed to stand, this order would have, for the first time since the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, meant thousands of babies born each year in California who otherwise would have been citizens would no longer enjoy the privileges and benefits of citizenship. The children whose citizenship would be stripped by the President’s order would lose their most basic rights and would be forced to live under the threat of deportation. They would lose eligibility for a wide range of federal services and programs. They would lose their ability obtain a Social Security number and, as they age, to work lawfully. And they would lose their right to vote, serve on juries, and run for certain offices. Despite the Constitution’s guarantee of citizenship, thousands of children would — for the first time — lose their ability to fully and fairly be a part of American society as a citizen with all its benefits and privileges.

In addition to harming hundreds of thousands of residents, the President’s order would have significantly harmed the States themselves, too. Among other things, this order would cause the states to lose federal funding to programs that they administer, such as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and foster care and adoption assistance programs, which all turn at least in part on the immigration status of the resident being served. States would also be required — at their considerable expense — to immediately begin modifying their operation and administration of benefits programs to account for this change, which would impose significant burdens on multiple agencies that operate programs for the benefit of the States’ residents. The States’ filings explain that they should not have to bear these dramatic costs while their case proceeds because the order is directly inconsistent with the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and two U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

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

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts granting a temporary restraining order that bars the Trump Administration’s unlawful and drastic National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding cuts from taking effect. Attorney General Bonta, as part of a coalition of 22 attorneys general, announced suing the Trump Administration over the NIH funding cuts earlier today and sought the temporary restraining order at issue. The temporary restraining order is in effect within the Plaintiff States until further order from the court.

“I am pleased that the federal district court has promptly granted our request for a temporary restraining order. The Trump Administration unlawfully sought to eviscerate funding for medical research, and they are now blocked from doing so. My fellow attorneys general and I will be closely monitoring to ensure that the Trump Administration follows the court’s order. Public and private universities in California are doing life-saving research that would otherwise be disrupted.”

A copy of the court’s order granting the temporary restraining order can be found here.

State attorneys general continue to secure favorable decisions reining in Presidential overreach 

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 Rhode Island to enforce the court’s prior order preventing the Trump Administration from implementing its freeze of up to $3 trillion in federal funding. The decision follows a motion to enforce filed by state attorneys general on Friday in light of evidence that the Trump Administration was continuing to block the disbursement of important state funding, including funding under the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act, and for the National Institutes of Health. 

“The Trump Administration continued to improperly freeze vital federal funding more than a week after a court ordered it not to, jeopardizing California’s efforts to strengthen domestic energy security and the construction of critical infrastructure projects,” said Attorney General Bonta. “No Administration is above the law. In every case we’ve filed to date, state attorneys general have successfully restrained the President’s abuse of executive power – and we will continue to hold him accountable; our democratic institutions depend on it. The court’s decision today is unequivocal: The Trump Administration must fully comply with the court’s order and immediately restore all federal funding while our litigation continues."

Attorney General Bonta is leading a coalition of 23 attorney general, along with the attorneys general of New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Illinois, in bringing this litigation.

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

Coalition also seeks court order barring Trump Administration from implementing drastic funding cuts

OAKLAND — As part of a coalition of 22 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for unlawfully decimating funds that support cutting-edge medical and public health research at universities and research institutions across the country. Filed in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, the lawsuit challenges the Trump Administration’s attempt to unilaterally cut “indirect cost” reimbursements at every research institution throughout the country, including at the University of California (UC) and at the California State University (CSU). Indirect cost reimbursements are based on each institution’s unique needs, negotiated with the federal government through a carefully regulated process, and then memorialized in an executed agreement. In addition to filing today’s lawsuit, the coalition is seeking a temporary restraining order to bar the Trump Administration’s action from taking effect.

“We are suing President Trump and his administration because they are once again violating the law. Let’s be clear about what they are seeking to do now: they want to eviscerate funding for medical research that helps develop new cures and treatments for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The stakes are especially high here in California. Ours is a state known as a national and global leader in life-saving biomedical research, and I will not allow the Trump Administration to jeopardize the extraordinary work being done right now by scientists, scholars, medical professionals, and other workers.”

“Like scores of institutions across the country, the University of California has relied on NIH grants to pursue life-saving research that benefits Americans nationwide,” said UC President Michael V. Drake, M.D. “Cuts of this magnitude would deal a devastating blow to our country’s research and innovation enterprise, undermine our global competitiveness, and, if allowed to go forward, will ultimately delay or derail progress toward treatment and cures for many of the most serious diseases that plague us today. We stand ready to fight to protect this critical investment in a healthier and more prosperous America.”

"Federal grant funding is vital to the CSU’s teaching and research mission, which addresses some of society’s most urgent challenges in health care, agriculture, water, fire prevention and cybersecurity,” said CSU spokesperson Jason Maymon. “The NIH’s drastic reduction in reimbursement for previously agreed upon administrative costs will leave the CSU’s 23 universities with millions in unfunded expenses, jeopardizing critical research and support systems needed for program success. This decision threatens not only groundbreaking research but also the future of student innovation and scientific progress."

"UAW 4811 is proud to support this suit because of its tremendous impact on our members and the critical research they do on projects ranging from cancer to Alzheimer's disease,” said UAW 4811 President Rafael Jaime.

This past Friday, February 7, the NIH announced it would abruptly slash indirect cost rates to an across-the-board 15% rate, which is significantly less than the cost required to perform cutting edge medical research. The NIH purported to make this cut effective the very next business day, Monday, February 10, giving universities and institutions no time to plan for the enormous budget gaps they are now facing. The reimbursements at issue cover expenses to facilitate biomedical research, like lab, faculty, infrastructure, and utility costs. Without immediate relief, this action could result in the suspension of lifesaving and life-extending clinical trials, disruption of research programs, staffing cuts, and laboratory closures. 

In today’s lawsuit, the attorneys general argue that the Trump Administration’s action violates the Administrative Procedure Act in multiple ways. For example, the attorneys general argue that the action is arbitrary and capricious and violates a directive Congress passed during President Trump’s first term to fend off his earlier proposal to drastically cut research reimbursements. That statutory language, still in effect, prohibits the NIH from requiring categorial and indiscriminate changes to indirect cost reimbursements.  

Most NIH-funding research occurs outside of federal government institutions such as both public and private universities and colleges. In California, this includes: 

• The University of California. The UC system has 21 health professional sciences schools, five NCI-designated cancer centers, and six academic medical centers widely recognized as among the best in the nation, and they are international leaders in the education of health professionals, in research that develops new cures and treatments, and in public service that provides healthcare for all Californians regardless of ability to pay. Federal funds are UC’s single most important source of support for its research, accounting for more than half of UC’s total research awards. In Fiscal Year 2023, UC received a total of over $2 billion in NIH contract and grant funding.
• The California State University. The CSU system is the largest public university system in the United States and consists of 23 campuses. In the last audited year, CSU campuses received approximately $158 million in NIH funds.  

The NIH is the primary source of federal funding for medical research in the United States. Medical research funding by NIH grants have led to innumerable scientific breakthroughs, including the discovery of treatment for cancers of all types, the first sequencing of DNA, and the development of the MRI. Additionally, dozens of NIH-supported scientists have earned Nobel Prizes for their groundbreaking scientific work. 

In filing today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of: Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, 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 lawsuit can be found here. 

Court finds DOGE access heightens risk of U.S. Treasury Department's vulnerability to hacking 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's decision granting a temporary restraining order that immediately blocked Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) associates from accessing Americans’ personal and private information while the states’ litigation proceeds. 

“Our country cannot afford to have people in the driver’s seat who move fast and break things, especially when the things they’re breaking are critical and sensitive systems that millions of Americans’ rely on. We are pleased the court swiftly granted our request to block unauthorized personnel, including DOGE associates, from accessing millions of Americans’ private and sensitive data,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The President does not hold the power to give Americans’ bank account and social security numbers to anyone he’d like — and as of Friday night, he must stop doing so.” 

Yesterday, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 19 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit seeking to block DOGE associates from accessing sensitive Treasury Department material, including millions of Americans’ bank account and social security numbers. Hours after filing the lawsuit, the court responded by granting the requested temporary restraining order while the states seek a preliminary injunction.

While the order is in effect, the Trump Administration may not grant access to Treasury Department records to political appointees, special government employees, and any government employee from an agency outside the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Fiscal Services, including members of DOGE. Treasury Department material may not be accessed by any person outside of civil servants within the Bureau of Fiscal Services who have passed all background checks and security clearances. The order also directs any person prohibited above from having sensitive information, but who has accessed such information, records, and systems since January 20, 2025, to immediately destroy all copies of material. 

A copy of the decision is available here.