Federal Accountability

OAKLAND — As part of a coalition of 16 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a motion asking the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to enforce its December 19, 2025 order, which required the U.S. Department of Education (Department) to set aside its unlawful discontinuation decisions on school mental health funding programs established by Congress and to issue new decisions in full compliance with the law. On March 2, 2026, the Department decided to only award grantees six months of funding instead of providing funding for the full year, as is standard practice. The Department’s decision to deny grantees’ access to a full year of funding violates the Court’s order because the decision will effectively end some grantee projects and severely burden many other grantees. Without the certainty of a full year of funding, some grantees will lose essential staff and will be unable to properly plan and budget for the fall semester.

“The Trump Administration’s noncompliance must come to an end. In California and nationwide, grantees have issued layoff notices, and even though they take effect months later, the ongoing uncertainty complicates planning and staffing for critical programs that support students’ mental health,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I will not give the Trump Administration a free pass. We urge the Court to hold the Administration fully accountable for failing to comply with its order.”

Spurred by episodes of devastating loss from school shootings, Congress established and funded the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program (MHSP) in 2018 and the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program (SBMH) in 2020 to increase students’ access to mental health services. On or about April 29, 2025, the Department notified grantees — including state education agencies, local education agencies, and institutes of higher education — that their grants would be canceled for allegedly conflicting with the Trump Administration’s priorities. In the press, the Trump Administration admitted that it targeted the States’ grants for their perceived diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. In July 2025, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition filed a lawsuit against the Department over the discontinuation of the grants, and in December 2025, the coalition secured a permanent decision declaring that the Department acted illegally and requiring the Department to make new continuation decisions.

In the motion to enforce, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition assert that:

• The Department is continuing to violate the Court’s order. In their most recent act of noncompliance, the Department put new, unnecessary rules in place that achieve the same result as canceling some grants and severely hinder other grantees’ ability to serve students.
• By claiming the grants “will continue under protest,” the Department is making grantees jump through unnecessary hoops — like filling out complicated reimbursement forms that historically have only been required for grantees who mismanaged funds and forcing grantees to submit a meaningless performance report before any new data is available.
• The Department has also threatened to withhold six months of funding that grantees would have normally received and need for the fall semester. 

MHSP addresses the shortage of school-based mental health service providers by awarding multi-year grants to projects that expand the pipeline for counselors, social workers, and psychologists through partnerships between institutes of higher education and local educational agencies. SBMH funds multi-year grants to increase the number of professionals that provide school-based mental health services to students through direct hiring and retention incentives. The ultimate goal of the programs is to permanently bring 14,000 additional mental health professionals into U.S. schools.

The programs have been an incredible success. In their first year, the programs provided mental and behavioral health services to nearly 775,000 elementary and secondary students nationwide. Sampled projects showed real results: a 50% reduction in suicide risk at high-need schools, decreases in absenteeism and behavioral issues, and increases in positive student-staff engagement. Data also showed recruitment and retention efforts are working — in the first year of the programs, nearly 1,300 school mental health professionals were hired and 95% of those hired were retained. Importantly, these newly hired school-based mental health providers were able to create an 80% reduction in student wait time for services. The grants have helped schools hire hundreds of psychologists, counselors, and social workers who have served thousands of students, including in the state’s most economically disadvantaged and rural communities. By all markers, these programs work. 

Joining Attorney General Bonta in filing the motion are the attorneys general of Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement on a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upholding a preliminary injunction in multistate litigation, co-led by California, challenging the Office of Management and Budget’s $3 trillion federal funding freeze. At risk in California was an estimated $168 billion in annual federal funding. 

“Today, the First Circuit affirmed what we all know to be true: The Trump Administration’s sweeping directive to unilaterally freeze all federal funding in its first days in office was deeply harmful, reckless, and wholly unreasoned,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Since this case was first filed, state attorneys general have stood together dozens more times to successfully block the President’s unlawful actions. Whether it’s Medicaid, clean energy, disaster recovery, or education funding at risk — or in this case, all of the above — we won’t back down, and we won’t stop winning. As Attorney General, I’ll continue to stand up for Californians up and down the state against whatever the President throws at us next.” 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement on a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to grant a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump Administration’s burdensome new requirements that colleges and universities submit data linking race to admissions, financial aid, and student performance. While the Trump Administration claims to be seeking this data to assist it in enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, its unprecedented new demands make it all but impossible for colleges and universities to submit usable data for review. Instead, the coalition is concerned that this unreliable data will be used to initiate costly and harmful investigations and enforcement actions against colleges and universities to further partisan political ends.  

“With the way this Administration has aggressively worked to roll back civil rights protections, its recent claims of wanting to enforce civil rights laws are more than a little fishy,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I’m pleased the court has put a temporary stop to the Trump Administration’s unprecedented and unrealistic demands for mass troves of education data while we continue to make our case.” 

HUD guidance eviscerates enforcement of fair housing laws 

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 16 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) over guidance it issued that significantly weakens fair housing protections and makes it harder to hold landlords accountable for discrimination. The Fair Housing Act (FHA), a federal law, prohibits discrimination based on seven protected traits: (1) race, (2) color, (3) national origin, (4) religion, (5) sex, (6) familial status, (7) disability. Critically, the FHA establishes a floor — not a ceiling — for protection against housing discrimination, meaning that states can expand the scope of protections beyond what the FHA mandates. Many states have chosen to do so. For example, California also provides fair housing protections for traits such as gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, source of income, and veteran or military status. HUD generally refers housing discrimination complaints to state and local agencies for potential action. However, HUD issued guidance in September 2025 threatening to decertify those agencies — thereby cutting off complaint referrals and funding — if they consider protections other than those required by the FHA, while simultaneously imposing new unlawful funding conditions. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the lawsuit by the attorneys general alleges that the guidance violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution and threatens to dismantle a crucial mechanism for combating housing discrimination. They ask the court to halt the Trump Administration’s implementation of the guidance.

“All levels of government — local, state, and federal — should be laser focused not only on building more housing, but also ensuring that everyone can access a home free from discrimination. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration thinks otherwise. HUD, without legal authority, is effectively undermining state laws that offer stronger protections than federal law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I are united in our answer: not on our watch. HUD’s guidance is unlawful and would only roll back the progress we’ve made to keep our families safe from discrimination that limits where they can live.”

Congress enacted the FHA in 1968 to address the pervasive nationwide problem of housing discrimination and tasked HUD with enforcing this landmark civil rights law. Recognizing the scope of the challenge, Congress envisioned a strong partnership between HUD and state and local agencies. This partnership has operated for decades through the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP). Through the FHAP, HUD funds state and local agencies whose fair housing laws are substantially equivalent to — that is, provide at least the same protections as — the FHA, and refers housing discrimination complaints to them. State and local agencies use FHAP funds to process housing discrimination complaints, train staff, and engage in community outreach and education.

In addition to requiring state and local agencies to weaken their fair housing laws, the HUD guidance at issue establishes a number of conditions that they must meet to qualify for FHAP funding, including:

• Disparate impact condition. HUD’s guidance prohibits state and local agencies from pursuing claims premised on disparate impact liability, even where state law expressly recognizes disparate impact as a cognizable theory of liability. Disparate impact liability prohibits discrimination based on the effects of a housing policy, even if the intent of the policy was not to discriminate.
• Anti-abortion condition. HUD’s guidance imposes an abortion-related funding condition on state and local agencies. The guidance, however, fails to explain what it means to “facilitate” or “promote” abortion, how FHAP agencies might do so, or why this condition unrelated to the administration of fair housing law is being imposed upon FHAP funding recipients.
• Immigration condition. HUD’s guidance prohibits FHAP funding from being used to “subsidize” or “promote” illegal immigration. However, the guidance does not explain what those terms mean.
• Gender ideology condition. HUD’s guidance prohibits state and local agencies from using funds to promote “gender ideology.” However, the definition of “gender ideology” is so imprecise that states and FHAP agencies would be required to guess what it means.

The attorneys general note that these conditions come after HUD gutted its own fair housing enforcement capabilities by slashing its headcount and significantly reducing the number of housing discrimination cases it charges. The agency also fired employee whistleblowers after they publicly sounded the alarm about its decimation of fair housing enforcement. 

In California, the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) collaborates with HUD under the FHAP. CRD does critical work to protect Californians from discrimination in housing. For example, in December 2025, CRD announced reforms at more than two dozen apartment complexes across California following an undercover fair housing test that identified evidence of potential discrimination against applicants who have previously been involved with the criminal justice system. HUD’s guidance prohibits CRD and other state and local agencies from pursuing these claims if they want to continue receiving FHAP funding.

Attorney General Bonta and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul are co-leading today’s lawsuit. Joining them are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s decision granting a preliminary injunction that continues to block the Trump Administration from terminating more than $600 million in public health funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The planned funding cuts exclusively target four Democratic-led states: California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota. The attorneys general of each of those states filed a lawsuit last month alleging that the cuts would irreparably harm their states and are based on political animus.

“Public health funding is not a political bargaining chip,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Over and over, courts have shut down the Trump Administration’s efforts to punish states that have adopted policies it disagrees with. This case is no different. The President should be ashamed of himself. We’re talking about funding that protects children from lead poisoning, that is used for the testing and treatment of HIV, and that allows us to track disease outbreaks. With this order, this funding will continue to flow — and we won’t stop fighting until these cuts are blocked for good.” 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today announced filing a motion to block implementation of President Trump’s latest efforts to impose illegal tariffs on products purchased by American consumers and businesses. The motion, filed by a coalition of 24 states, asks for summary judgment or, in the alternative, a preliminary injunction. Earlier this month, California and the coalition filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s imposition of global tariffs using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, an archaic, never-before-used law.

“President Trump has inflicted illegal tariff after illegal tariff on the American people — taxes that are weighing heavily on consumers and small businesses nationwide. The President’s taxes are increasing prices amid a crisis of affordability and inflicting chaos on the American economy,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “My office has challenged the President’s illegal tariffs every time and every step of the way because this issue matters tremendously to Californians and families across the U.S. Today, we ask the Court of International Trade to put an end to Trump’s obnoxious second attempt to illegally tax Americans — consumers and businesses need relief now.”

“These tariffs are nothing more than a tax on working families — shifting the burden of Trump’s failed trade negotiations onto folks who are already struggling to make ends meet. Trump keeps throwing out illegal, reckless policies, hoping something sticks, while everyday Americans pay the price," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "Trump’s tariffs were overturned by the Supreme Court, so now he’s inflicting new tariffs on Californians and all Americans like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. Chaos is not leadership. And we deserve better.” 

For more than a year, President Trump has unlawfully attempted to impose tariffs on essential goods purchased by American consumers and businesses. Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom previously challenged the President’s imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. And last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s imposition of tariffs under IEEPA, declaring them illegal.

The President is now attempting to use a different law that has never been used before — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — and has imposed 10% tariffs on most products worldwide, allegedly in response to trade deficits. But those tariffs are illegal, too. Section 122 allows tariffs only when there are “fundamental international payments problems” that require special measures to deal with “large and serious balance-of-payments deficits.” But there are no such deficits: A trade deficit is not a balance-of-payments deficit. 

Today’s motion asks the U.S. Court of International Trade to order federal agencies to stop collecting the latest round of illegal tariffs. Economic analysis submitted to the court shows that state governments in the 24 plaintiff states stand to pay at least $748 million per year in additional costs due to the tariffs. The case is entitled State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump, et al. and is pending before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). The court has scheduled in-person oral argument on the states’ motion for 10:00 a.m. EDT on Friday, April 10, 2026, in its ceremonial courtroom in New York City.

The case is led by Attorney General Bonta, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Also joining the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the Governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a multistate coalition in filing a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s burdensome new requirements that colleges and universities submit data linking race to admissions, financial aid, and student performance. While the Trump Administration claims to be seeking this data to assist it in enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, its unprecedented new demands make it all but impossible for colleges and universities to submit usable data for review. Instead, the coalition is concerned that this unreliable data will be used to initiate costly and harmful investigations and enforcement actions against colleges and universities to further partisan political ends.  

“The Trump Administration is on a fishing expedition — demanding unprecedented amounts of data from our colleges and universities under the guise of enforcing civil rights law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This is the same administration, I’ll remind you, that gutted the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, leaving thousands of civil rights complaints and investigations in limbo. This latest sham demand threatens to turn a reliable tool into a partisan bludgeon. California is committed to following the law — and we’re going to court to make sure the Trump Administration does the same.”

On August 7, 2025, President Trump directed the U.S. Department of Education to expand the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), an already-required survey, to address alleged concerns about race-conscious admissions practices in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The new survey section would collect a broad range of data on undergraduate and graduate admissions, financial aid, and student outcomes, including data disaggregated by race and sex, on 1) the institutions’ applied, admitted, and enrolled cohorts, disaggregated by admission test score, GPA, family income, Pell Grant eligibility and parental education; 2) average high school grade point average and admission test scores; and 3) the count of students admitted via early action, early decision, or regular admissions. Additionally, the survey would include data about students receiving financial aid, including the average amount, cost of attendance, graduation rates, and graduates’ final cumulative grade point average.

Collecting this data would require colleges and universities to undertake new, costly, and burdensome data collection efforts on an unreasonable timeframe and is unlikely to yield high quality data or achieve the U.S. Department of Education’s stated goals. Attorney General Bonta led a similar coalition in submitting multiple comment letters expressing broad concerns with the proposed overhaul to IPEDs last year. These comments were ignored, and the U.S. Department of Education finalized the policy, turning IPEDS from a reliable tool for methodical statistical reporting to a mechanism for law enforcement and the furthering of partisan policy aims.

In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the data collection demand is contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. Whereas past changes to IPEDS data collection methods have undergone rigorous advance vetting to ensure they were not overly burdensome and produced targeted, useful information, this dramatic overhaul of IPEDS occurred virtually overnight. Never before has IPEDS sought retroactive data; never before has IPEDS sought such a vast array of data; and never before has the U.S. Department of Education so quickly effected a major change to IPEDS. Now, without court intervention, the Trump Administration’s unrealistic demands leave institutions of higher education in an impossible position: hastily compile this data, knowing it will suffer from inconsistencies that may lead to costly investigations and enforcement action, or fail to comply, and face penalties.

Attorney General Bonta co-leads this lawsuit with Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown. They are joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Multistate coalition also criticizes other planned changes by Trump Administration 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce opposing the U.S. Census Bureau’s recently announced changes to the 2026 Operational Test. Operational tests are not new; they are a standard part of preparing for the next decennial count — here, the 2030 Census — and allow new methods, technologies, and procedures to be evaluated. However, the Trump Administration is pursuing changes that threaten the integrity and accuracy of this process. Specifically, the Census Bureau is proposing to use a longer-than-normal questionnaire that includes a citizenship question; to conduct the 2026 Operational Test between April and September in just two sites, rather than the six sites previously identified; and to have United States Postal Service (USPS) workers conduct in-person interviews for the Operational Test, rather than Census Bureau workers. In the letter, the attorneys general highlight the deficiencies of the Census Bureau’s current plans and urge the Trump Administration to reverse course.

“President Trump has repeatedly attempted to politicize the census. During his first term in office, he tried adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, but my office sued and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately blocked that unlawful effort. Last year, he posted on social media that he did not want all individuals, regardless of immigration status, to be counted in the 2030 Census — even though the U.S. Constitution clearly requires it. And now, his Census Bureau wants to move forward with a test survey that not only includes a citizenship question and other problematic changes, but that also undermines proper preparation for the 2030 Census,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We have fought tooth and nail to ensure that California receives both the congressional representation and federal funding we are entitled to. With today’s comment letter, my fellow attorneys general and I are continuing to stand up for the rule of law and calling out the Trump Administration for jeopardizing a fair and accurate 2030 Census. The proposed changes are illegal and must be withdrawn.”

In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition raise concerns about the Census Bureau’s plans, including that:

• The Notice announcing the proposed changes — entitled “Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; 2026 Operational Test in Support of the 2030 Census” — does not comply with procedural requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In presenting the changes as a notice, rather than as a proposed rule, the Census Bureau improperly bypasses the fulsome notice and comment procedures required by the APA. This circumvention of the APA is not proper.
• The Notice states that the Census Bureau proposes to use the American Community Survey (ACS) Methods Panel, which includes the ACS questionnaire, for the 2026 Operational Test. The ACS questionnaire, however, is a poor substitute for the decennial Census questionnaire. The questions asked by the ACS are meaningfully different and require significantly more time to answer than those in the recent census forms. While, as the Census Bureau has reported, “the main function of the U.S. decennial census is to provide counts of people for the purpose of congressional apportionment, the primary purpose of the [ACS] is to measure the changing social and economic characteristics of the U.S. population — our education, housing, jobs, and more.”
• Moreover, the use of the ACS questionnaire includes a citizenship question. Numerous tests and studies, including those conducted by the Census Bureau itself, demonstrate that the inclusion of a citizenship question is likely to reduce response rates, particularly for non-citizen, Hispanic, and Asian communities.
• The Notice also states that “the Test will evaluate and assess the use of [USPS] staff to increase efficiency in various capacities typically performed by temporary Census Bureau field workers.” The Notice, however, fails to explain the source and nature of these efficiencies, and is silent as to some of the problems that the plan to use USPS staff will cause. For example, Postal workers are not legally required to maintain confidentiality of individual data and are indeed permitted to share such information with a broad range of recipients under many different scenarios. In contrast, Census workers are strictly prohibited from sharing individuals’ data with any entity or person for any reason beyond the statistical objectives of the census.
• The two sites chosen — Spartanburg, South Carolina and Huntsville, Alabama — meet few of the Census Bureau’s stated criteria for test sites. In particular, the remaining two sites are poorly suited to test the Census Bureau’s operational efforts to improve response rates among hard-to-count populations.

In filing the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today, along with a coalition of 22 attorneys general and the states of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, announced a new lawsuit challenging President Trump’s imposition of global tariffs using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The lawsuit, to be filed today in the Court of International Trade, argues that the President’s use of Section 122 to impose tariffs is illegal because the President’s justifications for its use do not fall within the limited circumstances required by the statute. Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom previously challenged the President’s imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). And last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s imposition of tariffs under IEEPA, declaring them illegal.

“American consumers and business owners have made it clear they do not want tariffs, yet President Trump has tried over and over again to implement them. This time, the President is attempting to use an obscure law as a tool for his tariffs, and is yet again, going about it illegally,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This is not new terrain for California, but it is exasperating. Why is President Trump — who ran on the promise of making life more affordable for families — breaking the law to raise the cost of living for Americans? California has challenged the illegal imposition of tariffs time and time again because this question matters enormously for Californians who are already struggling with rising costs. For the 60th time since he took office, we’ll see the President in court."  

“These tariffs are nothing more than a tax on working families — shifting the burden of Trump’s failed trade negotiations onto folks who are already struggling to make ends meet. Trump keeps throwing out illegal, reckless policies, hoping something sticks, while everyday Americans pay the price," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "Trump’s tariffs were overturned by the Supreme Court, so now he’s inflicting new tariffs on Californians and all Americans like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. Chaos is not leadership. And we deserve better.” 

BACKGROUND 

The President’s regime of unlawful tariffs has made the affordability crisis worse for millions of Americans and has sent shockwaves through financial markets, businesses, and consumers in every corner of the globe — including in California, which is the fourth-largest economy in the world and the country’s largest importer and second-largest exporter among the 50 states. A recent Yale report found that the tariffs led to the average family losing $1,751 dollars last year. 

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs President Trump imposed under IEEPA were unlawful. That same day, the President issued a proclamation claiming authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 10% tariff on most products and countries worldwide. The next day, President Trump announced he would be raising these these tariffs to 15%. Tariffs under this statute cannot exceed 15% and are limited to 150 days, after which the President must seek congressional approval.

Section 122 Tariffs 

Section 122 authorizes the President to impose tariffs under a very specific set of circumstances, namely when fundamental international payments problems require special import measures to restrict imports. Section 122 tariffs are allowed only when such fundamental payment problems require special measures under three conditions: (1) to deal with large and serious balance-of-payments deficits, (2) to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar, or (3) to cooperate with other countries in correcting international financial disequilibrium. 

President Trump justifies invoking Section 122 on four grounds including (1) ongoing trade deficits, (2) negative primary income balance, (3) decline in the net international-investment position of the United States, and (4) persistent deficit of the balance on secondary income. Not a single one of the four justifications offered by the President are circumstances where Section 122 tariffs would be legal and appropriate.

Additionally, Section 122 requires tariffs be applied in a nondiscriminatory manner among countries and uniformly across products. Because the Proclamation exempts many goods from Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, and other countries, it violates the Section 122 requirement that the tariffs be applied consistently with the principle of nondiscriminatory treatment. Because the Proclamation also includes 84 pages of product exceptions, it also violates the requirement that the tariffs be applied uniformly across products. The lawsuit also includes a claim against U.S. Customs and Border Protection arguing that the agency guidance announcing its implementation of the President’s Proclamation is illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The case is led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Also joining the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the Governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania. 

California has worked to challenge the President’s illegal tariffs on all fronts. Last year, 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 has filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Oregon v. Trump as well as in the D.C. Circuit in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, cases challenging President Trump’s illegal imposition of tariffs, and filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump. In addition, he has hosted roundtable discussions in San Francisco and Los Angeles with business leaders on the front lines of the tariff war to discuss the impacts of tariffs on industries across California.

Multistate coalition pushes back on federal rules that allow employers to restrict access to birth control 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 22 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in support of a lawsuit filed by Pennsylvania and New Jersey concerning reproductive rights. Specifically, the brief backs the two states in opposing the first Trump Administration’s 2017 and 2018 regulations that undermine the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) guarantee of no-cost contraception coverage by employer healthcare plans. The regulations expand religious exemptions and create moral exemptions that allow employers to strip workers of guaranteed, no-cost coverage for birth control and other contraceptive care and services. California led a parallel challenge to the first Trump Administration’s rollback of the contraceptive mandate and that case remains pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The regulations were stayed during the Biden Administration while the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considered issuing new rulemaking, which Attorney General Bonta supported.

“Decisions about using birth control should be made by women and their doctors — not dictated by their bosses. California has long embraced that principle, and we have no intention of backing down,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I are urging the Third Circuit to affirm the lower court’s decision that struck down the Trump Administration’s unlawful regulations.” 

More than 80% of women ages 18 to 49 report having used some form of contraception in the past 12 months. With contraception costing an average of $584 per user per year, these unlawful regulations could shift an estimated $73.8 million in costs to individuals who rely on contraceptive care, creating significant barriers to accessing safe, effective healthcare.

In the brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that:

• The regulations threaten contraceptive coverage for hundreds of thousands of women, putting at risk their health and the economic and public health of the states generally.
• States will face significant financial strain as they are forced to expend millions of dollars for replacement contraceptive care and services through state-funded programs.
• The regulations deepen already prevalent racial, gender, and income disparities. People of color and people with low incomes are disproportionately likely to live in “contraceptive deserts,” or areas that lack reasonable access to the full range of contraceptive care.
• Access to birth control and contraceptive care has been substantially reduced in the years since these regulations were first implemented, and this harm will be exacerbated if the regulations remain in place because of changes in the landscape for reproductive healthcare.

Joining Attorney General Bonta in filing this brief are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.