Federal Accountability

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision yesterday to grant the Trump Administration’s request to block a lower court’s order requiring full funding of November SNAP benefits. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied a similar effort by the Administration, as Attorney General Bonta urged the First Circuit to do.

“We can’t lose focus of what the Trump Administration is doing: Rushing to the courts to avoid fully funding November SNAP benefits. They might be fine with more than 41 million low-income individuals experiencing hunger, but I’m not okay with that. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. Especially as the holidays approach, we should be extending compassion to our neighbors in need. This fight is far from over — the U.S. Supreme Court’s order is temporary and procedural — and my fellow attorneys general and I, along with others, will continue to fight for full November SNAP benefits.” 

A copy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s order can be found here.

Trump-appointed judge issues final ruling declaring Trump Administration’s federalization and deployment of National Guard troops in Oregon unlawful 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a final ruling blocking the unlawful deployment of California National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon over the objections of both states’ governors. Over the course of a three day trial, attorneys for the California Department of Justice, Oregon Department of Justice, and Portland City Attorney’s Office presented evidence and argued in court that the federalization and deployment of the Oregon National Guard and the cross-state deployment of the California National Guard to Portland was beyond the authority of the federal government and violates the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Today’s decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon finds in their favor, blocking the Trump Administration from deploying troops from Oregon, California, Texas, or other states to Portland.

“Today’s decision is a win for the rule of law, for the constitutional values that govern our democracy, and for the American people,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Once again, a court has firmly rejected the President’s militarized vision for America’s future. I am grateful for the partnership of my friend and colleague Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and the attorneys on my team who expertly cross-examined witnesses and argued this case in court. We must not become desensitized to the unprecedented and blatantly illegal nature of the President’s actions. This case is just one part of a broader effort by the President to trample on state sovereignty and reshape the American presidency. We celebrate this victory with eyes wide open and firm resolve to see this fight through to the end.” 

Last month, Attorney General Bonta joined Attorney General Rayfield in asking for, and subsequently securing, an order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon blocking the Trump Administration’s deployment of federalized California National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. Over the course of a three-day trial this week, California, Oregon, and Portland showed — and the District Court today affirmed — that this deployment was unlawful, finding:

• “[A]fter a three-day trial that included the testimony of federal, state, and local law enforcement officials and hundreds of exhibits describing protest activity outside the Portland ICE building, the evidence demonstrates that these deployments, which were objected to by Oregon’s governor and not requested by the federal officials in charge of protection of the ICE building, exceeded the President’s authority.” (p. 2)
• “After analyzing these statutory provisions, as applied to the facts in this case, this Court arrives at the necessary conclusion that there was neither “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” nor was the President “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States” in Oregon when he ordered the federalization and deployment of the National Guard.” (p. 3)
• “[California] Guardsmen cannot proceed to enforce other laws in other states that have no connection to their initial federalization.” (p. 86)
• “This Court is deeply troubled by Defendants’ continued deployment of Oregon National Guardsmen at the Portland ICE facility in violation of the First TRO” and is retaining jurisdiction for potential contempt proceedings.” (p. 9)
• “Defendants ignore the nature of the calling forth power. It is not simply another tool in the executive’s federal law enforcement toolbox that he may pull out at any time to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. It is the wielding of an entirely different kind of power, the military power, of which the Founders “always asserted and enforced the subordination . . . to the civil arm.” Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. at 37.” (p. 80)
• “Such a scenario of sending the National Guard as a response to commonplace crimes was precisely what the Founders feared would be misread in the Militia Clauses’ “to execute the Laws of the Union.”” (p. 85)
• “Based on the facts on the ground outside the Portland ICE building throughout the relevant time period between the outbreak of protests in June and the President’s federalization order on September 27, 2025, this Court holds that the President did not have a colorable basis to invoke Section 12406(2) when he ordered the federalization of the Oregon National Guard.” (p. 99)

BACKGROUND  

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 their efforts to transform America into a military state and National Guard troops into the President’s personal police force. 

• Suing Over Initial Federalization of California National Guard: 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 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.

• Posse Comitatus Act Violations: 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. 

• Challenging Ongoing Federalization and Deployment: Last Friday, Attorney General Bonta asked the District Court to restart proceedings and block the ongoing, unnecessary, and baseless federalization and deployment of the California National Guard in Los Angeles through February 2026. He argues that 10 U.S.C. § 12406 does not authorize the sort of broad-ranging, never-ending federalization and military occupation of American cities that the Trump Administration is perpetrating. On Tuesday, the Court agreed to resume consideration of the case. 

• Supporting Other States’ Cases: Attorney General Bonta has previously supported Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield’s and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb’s lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful deployment of National Guard troops to their cities. Attorney General Bonta also filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Illinois opposing the Trump Administration’s nearly limitless conception of presidential authority to federalize the National Guard and the activities those troops can engage in. 

A copy of the court’s decision can be found here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a multistate amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, urging it to deny the Trump Administration’s request to block a lower court’s order requiring full funding of November SNAP benefits. Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a ruling directing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide those benefits in full. Instead of focusing on getting vital food assistance to the more than 41 million low-income Americans who rely on SNAP benefits to put food on the table, the Trump Administration responded by filing a notice of appeal, seeking to block full payment of November SNAP benefits. Now, the Trump Administration has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to grant an emergency pause of the lower court’s order by 1:00 pm PT/4:00 pm ET today. 

“What the Trump Administration is doing is outrageous. It is fighting our efforts to fully fund November SNAP benefits, which prevent more than 41 million low-income Americans from going hungry. We are the richest country in the world, and despite the government shutdown, the Trump Administration can fully fund November SNAP benefits. But it is choosing not to. Intentionally. Deliberately. Cruelly,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I refuse to stand idly by. We urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to reject the Trump Administration’s efforts to take food off low-income Americans’ tables.”

Today’s amicus brief underscores that USDA has the money to fully fund SNAP and should do so immediately to prevent further harm to states. The coalition argues that USDA’s needlessly complicated guidance regarding reduced benefits has sown chaos in states. The coalition also explains that the loss of SNAP benefits has a ripple effect on other state services, as increased food insecurity creates a strain on state safety net programs, healthcare institutions, and educational institutions. In California, SNAP benefits have started to flow to many recipients pursuant to the district court’s order, but the federal government has now sought to block that order.

On October 28, Attorney General Bonta co-led a coalition of 23 attorneys general and three governors in filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the USDA, Secretary Brooke Rollins, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, and Director Russell Vought over the unlawful suspension of SNAP benefits for the month of November. Days later, two federal district courts determined that the Trump Administration acted unlawfully by choosing to suspend November SNAP benefits. Earlier this week, Attorney General Bonta issued a statement criticizing the Administration’s decision to provide only partial November SNAP benefits, despite being able to fully fund those benefits. Yesterday, Attorney General Bonta issued a statement celebrating the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island’s decision and calling out the Trump Administration for appealing that court’s order. The lawsuit in the District of Rhode Island was brought by a coalition of local governments, nonprofit organizations, small businesses, and workers’ rights organizations. 

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.

Calls out Trump Administration for appealing latest decision, instead of focusing on providing SNAP benefits

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a statement celebrating today’s decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island ordering the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide full SNAP benefits by tomorrow. The lawsuit in the District of Rhode Island was brought by a coalition of local governments, nonprofit organizations, small businesses, and workers’ rights organizations. Earlier today, as part of a coalition of 23 attorneys general and three governors, Attorney General Bonta filed a reply brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, requesting an order directing USDA to award full November SNAP benefits. In the brief, the coalition argues that USDA’s decision to award reduced benefits, rather than full benefits, is unlawful and continues to cause irreparable harm to the states and SNAP beneficiaries. 

“More than 41 million low-income Americans rely on SNAP benefits to put food on the table, and to date, the Trump Administration has failed them miserably. Carrying out USDA’s directive to award reduced benefits has been nothing short of an administrative nightmare in many states,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We continue to believe that the Trump Administration is legally required to pay full November SNAP benefits, which would also be far easier to get out the door. And it’s great news that they have now been ordered to do precisely that. Instead of simply focusing on getting vital food assistance to millions of people, however, USDA has appealed this latest order. It’s unconscionable. Californians, and people across this country, can’t afford any more delays or excuses.” 

On October 28, Attorney General Bonta co-led the coalition in filing the lawsuit against the USDA, Secretary Brooke Rollins, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, and Director Russell Vought over the unlawful suspension of SNAP benefits for the month of November. Days later, two federal district courts determined that the Trump Administration acted unlawfully by choosing to suspend November SNAP benefits. Earlier this week, Attorney General Bonta issued a statement criticizing the Administration’s decision to provide only partial November SNAP benefits, despite being able to fully fund those benefits. 

A copy of the reply brief can be found here.

“If President Trump wants to stop losing in court, he should stop breaking the law.” 

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 Transportation grants. The final ruling follows multistate litigation and a preliminary injunction. In issuing a permanent injunction, the Court found that the Trump Administration has “blatantly overstepped their statutory authority, violated the APA, and transgressed well-settled constitutional limitations on federal funding conditions. The Constitution demands the Court set aside this lawless behavior.”

“If President Trump wants to stop losing in court, he should stop breaking the law. The courts have repeatedly and firmly rejected the Trump Administration’s efforts to infringe on states’ constitutional right to set their own policy priorities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California will not be a pawn in the President’s political games. We will not be bullied into doing the Trump Administration’s bidding. I’m grateful to the court for putting a stop to this nonsense and ensuring we are able to continue to receive vital transportation dollars that support our public infrastructure and keep our roads safe.”  

California receives billions in grant funding from the Department of Transportation to support and maintain the roads, highways, railways, airways, and bridges that connect our communities and carry our residents to their workplaces and their homes. This includes funding to maintain and build highways. It also includes funding for transit systems in urban and rural communities across the state — including buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, trolleys, and ferries. Neither the purpose of these grants, nor their grant criteria, are in any way connected to immigration enforcement. 

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

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to the news that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will only be providing partial Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for the month of November. This morning, in a new legal filing, the Trump Administration wrote the following: “Per orders issued by the United States District Courts for the Districts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, [the Trump Administration] intends to deplete SNAP contingency funds completely and provide reduced SNAP benefits for November 2025.” Last week, Attorney General Bonta co-led a coalition of 23 attorneys general and three governors in filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the USDA and its Secretary, Brooke Rollins, over the unlawful suspension of November SNAP benefits.

“My fellow attorneys general and I took the Trump Administration to court because they chose to suspend November SNAP benefits. That decision was not only unlawful, as two federal courts ruled on Friday; it has also forced the 42 million individuals who rely on SNAP to scramble and figure out where their next meal is going to come from. Americans of all political persuasions have rightfully been outraged,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This morning, we learned that the Trump Administration has decided, at long last and in the face of growing public pressure, to partially fund November SNAP benefits. This is an important development, but the reality is that SNAP benefits won’t become immediately available to recipients. This lag is problematic and the result of President Trump's failure to follow the law until ordered to do so. In addition, today's announcement by the Trump Administration represents a moral failure. We are the richest country in the world, and the federal government could fully fund November SNAP benefits if it wanted to. Recent images and videos of long lines at food pantries nationwide highlight the gravity of the current situation — we must continue to care for those in greatest need. My office remains focused on holding the Trump Administration accountable for its illegal actions.”   

A copy of this morning’s filing by the Trump Administration can be found here.

Lawsuit challenges new rule that could exclude employers that the President doesn’t like

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit challenging new U.S. Department of Education regulations that could exclude people with federal student loans from Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) eligibility based on whether their employers engage in actions that the Trump Administration deems to have a “substantial illegal purpose.” The rule threatens PSLF eligibility for organizations that are engaged in important and legal activities, such as providing legal services to immigrants, providing gender-affirming care to minors, participating in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, or engaging in civil protest and the right to assembly. As of 2024, more than 81,000 Californians have received over $6 billion in PSLF forgiveness. Last month, Attorney General Bonta led a multistate coalition in sending a letter to the Department opposing a proposed version of the rule. In the lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the attorneys general ask the court to declare the now final rule unlawful, vacate it, and bar the Department from enforcing or implementing it. 

“Millions of Americans shaped their lives, made long-term career decisions, and took on deep financial burdens based on the promise that, if they dedicated their lives to public service and made student loan payments for 10 years, their government would support them. Now, the Trump Administration is pulling the rug from under hardworking Americans who absolutely deserve what they were promised,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is a Bush-era, bipartisan-backed effort that encourages generations of young people to build careers in public service. Make no mistake: This is the latest example of the Trump Administration’s weaponization of the federal government to go after people it does not agree with, all the while betraying and eroding the very institutions that uphold our democracy. We’ll see the President in court.”

In 2007, a bipartisan Congress under the Bush Administration created PSLF to encourage college graduates to work in the public sector, where salaries are often lower than at for-profit companies. The PSLF program enables public servants who work in eligible government and nonprofit roles to have their qualifying federal student loans forgiven after 10 years of qualifying service and payments. It helps public service employers recruit and retain skilled workers who might otherwise be forced to turn to private sector employment to afford to pay their student loans. Many California state employees are eligible for, actively pursuing, or have already benefited from PSLF as a means of managing the significant student debt that they incurred in preparing for skilled public service careers.

The U.S. Department of Education’s rule would enable the Secretary of Education to unilaterally disqualify employers from PSLF if she deems them to have a “substantial illegal purpose.” The vagueness of the rule could empower the Trump Administration to target politically disfavored conduct and may threaten PSLF eligibility for organizations that are engaged in longstanding and legal activities. The rule creates uncertainty as to who is an eligible employer and will deter student borrowers from entering public service. The resulting uncertainty of the rule will undercut the state’s ability to recruit and retain skilled employees.  

This rule is the latest attempt by the Trump Administration to harness the power of the federal government to target conduct and entities, states, and individuals it does not like — many of whom are at the forefront of critical sectors, processes, and programs that serve to uphold democratic norms. Within the last 10 months, the Trump Administration has used its power to:

•  Prosecute people it views as political enemies;
•  Threaten media that criticizes President Trump;
•  Go after law firms that represent people who President Trump perceives as enemies (here, here, and here); and
•  Target critical transportation, homeland security, and public safety and victim services funding for states engaging in conduct it doesn’t like. 

In the complaint filed today, the attorneys general argue the Department’s rule is contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), as the Higher Education Act defines eligible employers to include government agencies and 501(c)(3) non-profits with no exceptions and provides no grant of discretion to the Secretary of Education to determine otherwise. The attorneys general also argue the rule is arbitrary and capricious under the APA, as the rule fails to set out clear standards for when a government or nonprofit organization has a “substantial illegal purpose,” including by failing to define key elements of the inquiry, failing to describe the evidence ED may use to make such a determination, and failing to set out clear procedures to provide notice and due process to employers found to exist for a substantially illegal purpose.

Attorney General Bonta is co-leading today's lawsuit alongside the attorneys general of Colorado, Massachusetts, and New York. They are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to restart proceedings and block the ongoing, unnecessary, and baseless federalization and deployment of the California National Guard in Los Angeles. On September 9, citing concerns regarding its jurisdiction, the District Court stayed proceedings related to California’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block the Trump Administration’s August order federalizing California National Guard troops through Election Day. On October 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the District Court has jurisdiction. Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom today respectfully ask the District Court to restart proceedings and issue a preliminary injunction blocking any continued deployment of California National Guard troops in the Los Angeles area and return these troops to the Governor's command. 

“The Trump Administration believes it can keep California’s National Guard federalized and deployed wherever, forever, and for any purpose — no further justification necessary,” said Attorney General Bonta. “That is just not true, and we’re asking the court to issue a ruling that says as much without delay. The Ninth Circuit’s recent order made clear that this remains a live issue, and we are confident that when we make our case, we will prevail.” 

“President Trump turned the National Guard against the communities they swore to serve. This is unlawful and immoral,” said Governor Newsom.“Under state direction, California National Guard members have always been deployed in support of our communities – acting as surge medical staff in crises, helping with wildfire management, supporting fentanyl interdiction, and now, as the President withholds food stamps from hungry families, the Guard is distributing food to those in need. The National Guard deserves better than being treated like Trump’s toy soldiers – and when they’re returned to California command, we’ll get them back to doing the real work they signed up to do.”

Since the District Court stayed consideration of California’s motion, the Trump Administration’s unlawful orders have multiplied and expanded further. In the past month, the Trump Administration has federalized and deployed National Guard troops to two additional states — Oregon and Illinois — and deployed 214 federalized California National Guardmembers from Los Angeles to Oregon, then shuffled 14 of those same troops to Illinois. 

In the motion, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom argue that 10 U.S.C. § 12406 does not authorize the sort of broad-ranging, never-ending federalization and military occupation of American cities that the Trump Administration is perpetrating. They assert that there was no colorable basis to again federalize the California National Guard in Los Angeles on August 5, and there remains no basis for keeping them federalized and deployed in California now. 

BACKGROUND 

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 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.

Earlier this month, Attorney General Bonta joined Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield in asking for, and subsequently securing, an order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon blocking the Trump Administration’s deployment of federalized California National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. He also submitted new filings to the Ninth Circuit highlighting significant changes to the facts on the ground since June that undermine the Trump Administration’s arguments for staying the Northern California District Court’s orders, including its deployment of federalized California National Guard troops to Portland, and later, to Chicago.

Attorney General Bonta has previously supported Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield’s and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb’s lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful deployment of National Guard troops to their cities. Last week, Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Illinois opposing the Trump Administration’s nearly limitless conception of presidential authority to federalize the National Guard and the activities those troops can engage in.

A copy of today’s motion can be found here.

Urges Trump Administration to fund November SNAP benefits expeditiously

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released the following statement in response to decisions issued by two federal district courts — one in Massachusetts and the other in Rhode Island — holding the Trump Administration accountable for unlawfully suspending Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for the month of November. 

“Today, not one, but two federal district courts determined that the Trump Administration acted unlawfully when it chose to suspend SNAP benefits for the month of November. The Trump Administration knows that it has a legal duty to fund SNAP benefits, even during the current government shutdown. In fact, just last month, the USDA admitted as much in a document that it later deleted from its website,” said Attorney General Bonta. “SNAP benefits provide an essential hunger safety net to an average of 5.5 million Californians each month. Simply put, the stakes could not be higher. The Trump Administration must move expeditiously to fund November SNAP benefits.”

Earlier this week, Attorney General Bonta co-led a coalition of 23 attorneys general and three governors in filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its Secretary, Brooke Rollins, over the unlawful suspension of November SNAP benefits. The coalition also filed a request for a temporary restraining order, which the court considered during an in-person hearing yesterday. In that case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an order today stating that USDA’s SNAP “contingency reserve . . . must be deployed to fund SNAP benefits.” The court also determined that Attorney General Bonta and the coalition are “likely to succeed on their claim that [the Trump Administration’s] suspension of SNAP benefits is unlawful.” 

In a related lawsuit brought by a coalition of local governments, nonprofit organizations, small businesses, and workers’ rights organizations, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued an order directing USDA to fund November SNAP benefits using at least the over $5 billion in contingency funds that it has available.

A copy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’ decision can be found here.

Joins multistate coalition opposing U.S. DOJ subpoena to access private medical records

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced joining a coalition of 15 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The brief urges the court to limit the U.S. Department of Justice’s (U.S. DOJ) subpoena targeting the release of private medical records, including patient records, related to gender-affirming care at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP).

“Subpoenas targeting the medical records of transgender youth are an assault on privacy,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Healthcare decisions should be between patients, families, and doctors — not in the hands of the government. That’s why I am standing with a coalition of attorneys general, urging the court to quash or limit U.S. DOJ’s subpoena of documents relating to medically necessary, gender-affirming care.”

Since taking office, the Trump Administration has attempted to end lawful medical care that it disfavors. On day one, President Trump issued an Executive Order declaring gender identity a “false” idea. A week later, the President issued another Executive Order attempting to strip federal funding from institutions that provide lifesaving gender-affirming care for young people under the age of 19, with the ultimate goal of ending all gender-affirming care for adolescents. In April, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo directing U.S. DOJ to investigate healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies that engage in gender-affirming care. 

On June 12, U.S. DOJ sent CHOP an administrative subpoena, seeking information and documents relating to the hospital’s provision of gender-affirming care. This subpoena demands sensitive medical records and personally identifying information about adolescent patients and their families. For example, U.S. DOJ is seeking patient names, dates of birth, home addresses, and social security numbers. 

In their brief, the attorneys general urge the court to limit U.S. DOJ’s subpoena. They argue that:

• The federal government is clearly seeking to intimidate medical providers from offering critical and medically necessary care to transgender youth, even in states like California where such care is legal and protected.
• As part of this subpoena request, U.S. DOJ is interpreting the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) as outlawing medical providers from prescribing FDA approved medications to their patients for off label use. If U.S. DOJ’s interpretation of the FDCA were accepted, entire fields of medicine could see their practitioners at risk of criminal conviction merely for offering routine, evidence-based treatments. As the amicus brief points out, some studies estimate that as much as 80% of drugs prescribed for children are prescribed for off label uses. 

The states submitting the brief have enacted their own laws, policies, and protections, for transgender residents, including transgender youth under the age of 19. California has enacted laws recognizing the right to access gender-affirming care and shielding people who access or provide gender-affirming care from civil or criminal penalties by out-of-state jurisdictions. 

Earlier this month, Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief opposing U.S. DOJ’s subpoena for patient records related to gender affirming care at Boston Children’s Hospital. California continues its efforts to stand firmly in support of healthcare policies that respect the dignity and rights of all people.

Joining Attorney General Bonta in submitting the amicus brief are the attorneys general of Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. 

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.