Federal Accountability

Cites immediate and potentially devastating harms to California schools and students 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a multistate coalition in filing a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the Trump Administration’s mass firing of U.S. Department of Education employees and the transfer of core statutory functions to other departments. These actions will devastate the Department of Education’s ability to meet its statutory obligations across numerous programs — direct funding for K-12 education, student aid, services for students with disabilities, civil rights enforcement, vocational training, and more. California schools alone receive $7.9 billion annually from the Department of Education, and these schools have already reported impacts and disruptions to their ability to provide public education to California’s children as a result of these actions. As such, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the actions violate the Administrative Procedures Act, are unconstitutional, and should be enjoined while litigation continues.

“California receives billions of dollars each year from the U.S. Department of Education. The programs and initiatives these funds support help ensure all our children have access to a high-quality public education and are able to learn in a safe, healthy environment,” said Attorney General Bonta. “All of this is at risk with the Trump Administration’s mass firing of Department employees and outsourcing of core statutory functions like the administration of federal student loans. President Trump has made no secret of his desire to shut down the Department of Education for good – and we know that these actions are just a step toward that end goal. But as his own administration has acknowledged, he lacks the authority to unilaterally do so. I respectfully ask the court to block the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education from within while our litigation continues.”

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

The U.S. Department of Education provides $7.9 billion annually in federal funding to more than 9,000 public schools across California – serving 5.8 million students. This includes funding for Title I to support low-income families, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funds and support for students with disabilities, school lunch programs, services to families living on military bases and Indian reservations, and post-secondary financial aid. Already, the mass firings have led to the closure of seven regional offices of the Office for Civil Rights, including the one in San Francisco, leaving 1,500 pending cases, including open investigations, cases in mediation, resolved cases under monitoring, and complaints under research by staff, in limbo. 

It is clear that the mass firing of nearly 50% of all Department of Education employees will make it impossible for the Department to meet its current obligations under federal law, violating the separation of powers and the Executive Branch’s obligation to take care that the law is faithfully executed, and exceeding the Department’s authority under the law in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. Given the immediate and potentially devastating harm that these firings and subsequent transfer of core programs could cause to California’s schools and children, Attorney General Bonta, along with the coalition, respectfully asks the court to grant a preliminary injunction while the states’ litigation continues.  

Attorney General Bonta is leading this lawsuit with Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. They are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, Vermont, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the motion is available here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a multistate coalition, filed an amicus brief in Svitlana Doe, et al., v. Kristi Noem, et al., in support of pathways to humanitarian parole that allow certain vulnerable immigrants to legally enter and remain in the United States to apply for temporary or permanent immigration status. Upon taking office, President Trump directed the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to terminate these pathways, jeopardizing the immigration status of Afghans who supported U.S. interests abroad; Ukrainians displaced by Russia’s invasion; and Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans fleeing dangerous conditions in their home countries. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta and a multistate coalition argues the termination of these pathways would upend the lives of tens of thousands of lawfully present immigrants, tear communities and families apart, and deprive the states of the significant economic and social benefits these immigrants provide.   

“Since taking office, President Trump has waged war on immigrants who are in this country legally – American-born children, refugees displaced by war or disaster at home, individuals who have fled from political instability or violence, and those who provided assistance to the U.S. military at great personal risk,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The termination of pathways to secure temporary immigration status threatens to upend the lives of tens of thousands of immigrant families and to rob states like California of the vital economic and societal benefits these families provide. I respectfully urge the court to order the Trump Administration to restore these vital pathways for legal immigration while litigation continues.”

In response to various global humanitarian emergencies, the Biden Administration implemented the Uniting for Ukraine parole pathway to benefit Ukrainians fleeing the Russian war, as well as similar relief for those fleeing conditions in Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua. The Biden Administration also implemented Operation Allies Welcome to lead and coordinate ongoing efforts across the federal government to support vulnerable Afghans, including those who worked alongside the U.S. in Afghanistan. At President Trump’s direction, the Department of Homeland Security abruptly stopped processing new applications for parole pathways and barred current parolees from applying for other forms of temporary or permanent immigration status earlier this year. 

Immigrant-led households in California paid $61.8 billion in state and local taxes in 2023 and spent $404.4 billion in their local economies. Immigrants made up nearly one-third of California’s labor force, holding 46.1% of healthcare aide jobs and 62.2% of agricultural jobs.

In the amicus brief, the multistate coalition argues that ending these parole pathways would harm California and other states, including by preventing these individuals from contributing positively to our workforces and growing our economies, especially in businesses and industries facing persistent labor shortages. The coalition also highlights the significant harms of forcing these individuals to return to dangerous, violent, and repressive conditions and the resulting separation of families with mixed immigration status.

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New York, Illinois, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin in filing the brief. 

A copy of the brief is available here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 12 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing the U.S. Department of State’s proposal to eliminate the option of “X” as a marker for gender on U.S. passports for individuals who identify as transgender or nonbinary. The Department has also sought to change the use of “gender” to “sex” on these forms. In the letter, the coalition argues that these changes contradict state laws which permit the use of gender markers including “X” in official government documents, including birth certificates and driver’s licenses, among other concerns. 

“Everyone deserves the right to live as their authentic self, free from discrimination based on their gender identity. The Trump Administration’s attempt to force our transgender and nonbinary communities to use a passport that does not accurately reflect who they are is a direct attack on individual liberties and the work we do to protect our citizens from discrimination,” said Attorney General Bonta. “In California we recognize the importance of gender identity and are committed to protecting and defending rights of our transgender and nonbinary communities.” 

Prior to the Trump Administration’s issuance of the Executive Order entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” the Department of State had permitted gender marker changes and a designation of “X” for gender. Dating back as early as the 1980s, the federal government has recognized gender identity as distinct from sex assigned at birth and accordingly granted individuals the ability to change gender markers in identifying records and documents. It was not until this Executive Order that the Department sought to abandon its rooted practice of allowing for gender marker changes. 

In the letter, the coalition argues that the Department’s departure from the longstanding approach of allowing for gender marker changes lacks rational justification and will:

• Conflict with state laws, that allow individuals to use gender designations that correspond with their gender identity;
• Cause significant confusion and disruption in the administration of state-issued identification materials;
• Interfere with the rights of transgender and nonbinary citizens to travel freely, as the proposed changes would force transgender and nonbinary individuals to use a passport that does not accurately reflect who they are; and
• Expose transgender and nonbinary individuals to harm, including harassment, discrimination, and negative mental health outcomes. 

In sending today’s comment letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. 

A copy of the letter can be found here.

OAKLAND - Attorney General Bonta, as part of a coalition of 20 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in Pacito v. Trump in support of a challenge to the Trump Administration's Refugee Ban and Refugee Funding Suspension, arguing that the actions are unlawful, misrepresent the concerns and interests of states, and undermine states’ ongoing efforts to successfully assimilate and integrate newly arrived refugees.

A copy of the brief is available here. 

Temporary restraining order reinstates employees unlawfully fired by Trump Administration

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to the U.S. District Court for Maryland granting a temporary restraining order that bars the Trump Administration’s unlawful mass firing of federal probationary employees from taking effect. Attorney General Bonta, as part of a coalition of 20 attorneys general, filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration over the illegal firing of federal probationary employees and sought the temporary restraining order at issue. The temporary restraining order reinstates the probationary employees who were unlawfully terminated by 18 federal agencies named in the lawsuit. 

“The Trump Administration’s callous and reckless mass firing of probationary federal employees has caused chaos and prevented these workers from providing critical services that affect the everyday lives of Americans, from offering support for veterans and farmers, to protecting our cherished national parks and public lands,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I am pleased that the federal district court has promptly granted our request for a temporary restraining order, which will block the Administration’s unlawful mass firing directive and reinstate affected employees. I, alongside my fellow attorneys general, will be closely monitoring to ensure that the Administration follows the court’s order.”

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

Trump Administration seeks to cut number of employees in half as part of its plans to shutter the Department

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a multistate coalition in filing a lawsuit challenging the unlawful mass firing of nearly 50% of all employees at the U.S. Department of Education. The firings are a significant step toward implementing the President’s directive to eliminate the Department of Education and are already devastating the Department’s ability to carry out critical functions. For example, a drastic reduction of workers in the Department’s Office for Civil Rights has shuttered at least seven regional offices, including those in San Francisco, New York, Boston, Dallas, and Cleveland. In the lawsuit, the coalition argues that the Trump Administration cannot abolish the Department of Education and cannot disrupt or override — through the mass firings of employees or otherwise — the statutory functions and programs that fall under its purview.

“The Trump Administration’s attempt to gut the Department of Education’s workforce is another step in its end goal of shuttering the department for good,” said Attorney General Bonta. “In doing so, the Trump Administration ignores the invaluable role the Department of Education plays in ensuring the health, safety, and education of our children — administering programs that assist children from low-income families, providing vocational training, and enforcing anti-discrimination laws, among countless other responsibilities fundamental to our educational system. Dismantling the Department of Education from within would have catastrophic consequences — and like many of the Trump Administration’s actions since taking office, is blatantly illegal. It shouldn’t be too much to ask for a President to follow the law, but for the eighth time in as many weeks, we’ll see him in court.”

On March 11, the Department of Education initiated a reduction in workforce impacting nearly 50% of the Department’s employees, as part of the Trump Administration’s “final mission” to dismantle the Department. Impacted Department staff will be placed on administrative leave beginning Friday, March 21st. When President Trump was inaugurated, the Department’s workforce stood at 4,133 workers. Following the March 11 actions, the Department’s workforce will total roughly 2,183 workers. Included in the reduction in force are nearly 600 employees who accepted voluntary resignation and retirement proposals over the last seven weeks, including 259 employees who participated in the Deferred Resignation Program and 313 employees who accepted the Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment.

In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and a multistate coalition demonstrate that President Trump’s directive to shut down the Department, and the steps taken by the Department and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to implement that directive, are unlawful and cannot stand. The coalition establishes that the Trump Administration cannot undo the many acts of Congress that authorize the Department, dictate its responsibilities, and appropriate funds for it to administer. Its attempt to do so through the mass firings violates the separation of powers and the Executive Branch’s obligation to take care that the law is faithfully executed. Further, as the complaint details, these firings exceed the Department’s authority under the law, are arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.    

Attorney General Bonta is leading this lawsuit with Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. They are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, Vermont, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the lawsuit is available here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to the District Court for the District of Columbia granting a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump Administration from retaliating against Perkins Coie LLP and its attorneys, as part of a campaign by President Trump to silence lawyers and law firms that represent individuals and causes he opposes and to chill opposition.

“This ruling is a win for free speech and the rule of law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The President cannot use the power of his office to punish those who disagree with him. Today, our system of checks and balances worked. The court blocked the Trump Administration from retaliating against Perkins Coie based solely on the clients and ideas it represents, in accordance with the rights and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution to protect the American public.” 

Earlier today, as part of a multistate coalition, Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in support of law firm Perkins Coie’s lawsuit seeking to block the Trump Administration from retaliating against the firm and its attorneys for no reason other than that it has dared to challenge the Administration in court.  In the amicus brief, the attorneys general defended the rule of law and a fundamental principle underlying the American legal system — that everybody is entitled to vigorous representation.   

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a brief urging the United States Supreme Court to affirm the court of appeals’ decision in Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency. The case concerns a waiver of preemption, granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2013, which authorized the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to enforce standards—promulgated in 2012—requiring automakers to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and increase production of zero-emission vehicles. 

Petitioners, who are in the oil and biofuel industries, did not challenge the waiver when it was first issued. Instead, they filed their challenge nearly a decade later, after the federal waiver was reinstated in 2022 following an unlawful rescission in 2019. Petitioners argued that the reinstated waiver exceeded EPA’s authority under federal law. Attorney General Bonta, with Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Air Resources Board, led a group of States and local governments to intervene in the case to defend against the challenge. In April 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the challenge, ruling that the petitioners lacked legal standing. That was because by the time petitioners’ case began, automakers were producing large numbers of zero-emission vehicles due to consumer demand and the automakers’ past investments, and petitioners failed to show that judicial relief would likely redress their asserted harm by increasing fuel sales.

“Congress recognized that California has special expertise and experience in protecting our people, our health, and our environment from preventable pollution through vehicle emissions standards,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Our solutions have encouraged advancements in cleaner automotive technologies, and improved the health and well-being of communities statewide, showing how strong environmental policies and economic growth go hand in hand. That’s why we intervened, to make sure there would be a strong defense of California’s authority. These challengers waited nearly a decade to bring this suit, and then they didn’t even show that that they would benefit from increased sales if their suit succeeded. We will defend the dismissal of this case on standing grounds, and we will continue to defend California’s authority in future cases that may arise.”

“For more than 50 years, the Clean Air Act has helped usher in clean air and healthier communities across the nation and the globe,” said CARB Executive Officer Dr. Steven S. Cliff. “Again and again, California’s experience shows environmental protection and economic prosperity go together. We remain committed to holding our ground, fully defending our authority and ensuring American competitiveness.”  

Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set emission standards for air pollutants from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines that cause or contribute to air pollution and endanger public health or welfare. Under the Clean Air Act, California may adopt emission requirements independent from EPA’s regulations, and EPA is required to waive preemption for those requirements absent certain, limited circumstances. 

In the brief, Attorney General Bonta explains that: 

• California’s 2012 standards originally set ambitious goals for automakers to increase their sales of zero-emission vehicles and reduce fleetwide average greenhouse gas emissions. The standards were designed to spur investment and technological innovation.  
• In the following years, automakers invested heavily in new technologies and manufacturing capabilities, and consumer comfort with zero-emission vehicles increased. Consumers showed themselves willing to pay price premiums and endure wait times for sought-after vehicles, and sales increased faster than regulators had predicted. By 2022, when this challenge began, automakers were selling large numbers of vehicles that satisfy California’s standards for their own reasons—to profit from their investments and take advantage of that consumer demand. 
• As a result, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioners’ challenge for lack of standing. The petitioners failed to show that a court’s vacatur of the waiver in 2022—when petitioners filed their challenge—would increase fuel sales and alleviate petitioners’ asserted injuries. 

A copy of the brief can be found here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta continues to support the U.S. District Court's decision to reinstate Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Today, Attorney General Bonta, alongside 21 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in continued opposition to President Donald Trump’s unlawful attempt to remove Gwynne Wilcox, a Member of the NLRB. Dismissing Wilcox would leave just two members remaining on the five-member board, which cannot act without a quorum of at least three members.

On February 28, Attorney General Bonta, as part of a coalition of 20 attorneys general, filed his first amicus brief in Wilcox v. Trump in support of Gwynne Wilcox, who challenged the President’s unlawful removal of her position as a Member of the NLRB. Last week, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order declaring that Member Wilcox should remain a full member of the NLRB and found the President’s action firing her to be “blatantly illegal.” The Trump administration has asked for a stay to stop the ruling from going into effect while it seeks an appeal, which would effectively allow her firing to take effect. In today’s brief, the attorneys general urge the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to deny the administration’s request for a stay. The coalition argues that if allowed to stand, the attempt to dismiss Wilcox would undermine protections for workers and destabilize federal labor law.

“Gwynne Wilcox’s purported removal from NLRB was unlawful, period,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Workers across the country rely on the NLRB to protect their rights by preventing unfair labor practices and safeguarding their ability to unionize. I, alongside my fellow attorneys general, will continue to be steadfast in our commitment to upholding the law and ensure that Member Wilcox and NLRB can continue their critical work to protect workers nationwide.”

The NLRB is an independent federal agency that enforces U.S. labor laws related to workers’ rights, union representation, and collective bargaining. It oversees union elections, ensuring that employees can freely choose whether to be represented by a union. The Board also investigates and resolves unfair labor practice charges against employers and unions, addressing issues like retaliation, unlawful firings, and refusal to bargain in good faith. The NLRB also adjudicates disputes under the NLRA and issues rulings that shape labor law policies. To protect the NLRB from political pressure by the President, NLRB board members are appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress for staggered 5-year terms. Board members do not serve at the pleasure of the President. Federal law provides that Board members can only be removed by the President “upon notice and hearing, for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause.”  

In January, President Trump purported to dismiss Gwynne Wilcox from her position as a member of the NLRB without cause, an action unprecedented in the agency’s 90-year history. Wilcox, the first Black woman to serve on the NLRB, was set to conclude her tenure in August 2028.  

In the amicus brief, the attorneys general argue that the President violated the NLRA and support Wilcox's challenge of her unlawful removal from the Board. If the Board is not able to convene, it cannot issue rules or adjudicate unfair labor practices. This regulatory vacuum would harm workers everywhere if the NLRB's inactivity continues. In the brief, the attorneys general highlight that by removing Wilcox and incapacitating the NLRB, the Trump Administration will leave American workers without the entity authorized to ensure the guaranteed ability to join a union and engage in collective bargaining, protections which workers have relied on for decades. This regulatory vacuum is deeply troubling given the importance and scale of the work done by the NLRB. In the past decade, the NLRB reviewed nearly 3,000 allegations of unfair labor practices.

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. 

A copy of the brief can be found here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a multistate coalition, filed an amicus brief in support of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP’s lawsuit seeking to block the Trump Administration from retaliating against the firm and its attorneys for no reason other than that it has dared to challenge the Administration in court. The Trump Administration’s actions against Perkins Coie are part of a campaign by President Trump to silence lawyers and law firms that represent individuals and causes to which he is opposed and to chill opposition. In the amicus brief, the attorneys general defend the rule of law and the fundamental principle underlying the American legal system — that everybody is entitled to vigorous representation.   

“The right to an attorney is a bedrock of our legal system and American democracy as a whole,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration’s political attack on Perkins Coie — based solely on the clients and ideas they represent — is unprecedented and unjustifiable. If it goes unchecked, it will have an immediate chilling effect on attorneys nationwide, instilling a fear of retaliation among those who dare to disagree with this President. I stand with my fellow attorneys general in condemning the President’s campaign of retribution. Once again, the President acts as if he were a king — ignoring the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution he swore to uphold.”

The Trump Administration has retaliated against law firms and other legal professionals associated with investigations related to President Trump or who espouse or employ principles and practices that advance diversity, equity, and inclusion — specifically Perkins Coie and Covington and Burling LLP. In a March 6, 2025 Executive Order entitled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP,” the Trump Administration targeted the law firm for its representation of Hillary Clinton, its diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, and unsupported “national security” concerns. 

In their amicus brief, the attorneys general support Perkins Coie’s motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent the Trump Administration’s retaliatory actions against Perkins Coie from going into effect while litigation continues. The attorneys general argue that the President’s executive order runs roughshod over the First Amendment and the basic principles underlying the U.S. adversarial justice system by attempting to exclude certain lawyers and certain viewpoints from reaching the court at all: barring Perkins Coie lawyers from entering federal buildings and meeting with federal government employees; revoking their security clearances; and ending existing federal contracts with the firm and its clients.

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorney general of Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont in filing the amicus brief.  

A copy of the brief is available here.