Federal Accountability

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

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

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

A copy of the decision is available here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A copy of the brief can be found here.

Court order continues blocking termination of federal funds appropriated by Congress

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

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

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

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

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

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 18 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump in support of a challenge to the Trump Administration’s executive orders targeting programs that incorporate equity, inclusion, diversity, and accessibility (Anti-DEI EOs). In their brief, the attorneys general urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to uphold the district court’s decision granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.  

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

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

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

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

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

A copy of the brief can be found here.

Files brief in support of states rocked by tariffs across the country 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today filed an amicus brief in Oregon v. Trump, a case challenging President Trump’s illegal imposition of so called “emergency” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Last month, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to levy tariffs via over a dozen executive orders under the IEEPA. In the brief filed today in the Court of International Trade, Attorney General Bonta argued that the Trump Administration’s interpretation of its authority under IEEPA is incorrect — the Act’s language does not provide the authority impose tariffs. 

“President Trump’s illegal tariffs impact businesses, consumers, and states across the nation and it is our responsibility as state leaders to advocate and defend our people against harmful — and illegal — actions,” said Attorney General Bonta. “It’s simple, the statute that the President is using to impose his chaotic tariffs clearly does not include the authority to do so, any reading of it as such is wild, nonsensical, and irresponsible.”  

BACKGROUND

In the past few months, President Trump has issued over a dozen executive orders imposing, pausing, reimposing, and escalating tariffs on every U.S. trading partner, and claimed authority to do so under IEEPA. New tariffs are chaotically contemplated, announced, or delayed nearly every day. The uncertainty surrounding the tariffs is itself causing immediate harm to California by incapacitating its ability to budget and plan for the future and chilling the economy — as businesses and people pause decision-making and lose out on opportunities. 

While difficult to calculate due to their frenzied nature, most estimates put the new average tariff rate at or above 25%. The current IEEPA tariff regime imposes a universal tariff of 10% on all U.S. trading partners, with tariff increases as high 50% on more than 50 specific trading partners set to go into effect on July 9, 2025. 

Separately, Canada and Mexico are subject to IEEPA tariffs of up to 25%, which are currently in effect after being paused and then re-started. China is subject to an ever-changing combination of IEEPA tariffs that reached a staggering rate of 145%, and as of the publication of this press release, plummeted down to 30% under the 90-day pause. The claimed rationales for each of these tariffs is wide-ranging and difficult to follow from trade deficits and foreign trade practices to immigration, crime, and illicit drugs. In response to President Trump’s tariffs, major U.S. trading partners including China, Canada, and the European Union have imposed or announced retaliatory tariffs — China’s retaliatory tariffs alone reached 125%.

The impact of President Trump’s unprecedented IEEPA tariffs is devastating and unprecedented. The near-daily threats to impose new tariffs have already inflicted and continue to inflict serious financial harms on California and states across the nation — with the largest burden expected to fall on the poorest Americans, who cannot absorb the loss of wages or the greater cost of goods. 

President Trump’s tariff regime will:

• Reduce Americans’ incomes and productivity: Tariffs are expected to reduce the labor supply by 546,000 full-time jobs. 
• Cause higher prices and less availability of goods, leading to goods shortages and supply chain disruptions: The Port of Los Angeles saw a third of import volume disappear as of the first week of May, which will hit the availability of goods in stores in only a few weeks. 
• Wreak havoc on our financial systems: The U.S. stock market suffered the largest two-day loss in its history in the two days following the announcement of President Trump’s most sweeping tariffs. 
• Generate enormous economic damage to both the U.S. economy and the California economy: Tariffs, on net, reduce production, income, and efficiency. 
• Raise the probability of a recession: Recessions are damaging to public finance and state budgets — budget pressures can also mean cessation of spending in areas of pressing need, such as public safety, education, and disaster preparedness.

A copy of the brief is available here.  

Economic chaos, higher prices, lower wages, empty shelves — California is bracing for impact

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today filed a motion for preliminary injunction with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to stop the Trump Administration’s illegal tariffs while litigation in their case proceeds. On April 16, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs and direct agencies within the administration to implement and enforce those tariffs without the consent of Congress. President Trump’s illegal and erratic tariffs are wreaking havoc on the U.S. financial system and causing uniquely immense harm to California’s economy — a major driver of our national economy. The tariffs challenged under California’s current lawsuit are projected to cost California consumers $25 billion dollars and result in the loss of over 64,000 jobs. The totality of the Trump Administration's tariff regime is expected to cost households approximately $40 billion. 

In addition to the motion for a preliminary injunction, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom also filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Oregon v. Trump, a case challenging President Trump’s illegal imposition of so called “emergency” tariffs. 

“Last fall, Americans at the voting booth demanded lower prices. Now, Trump’s chaotic tariff war is threatening to skyrocket the cost of living for families, lower wages, slash jobs, and throw business owners and innovators into a spiral of uncertainty,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Let me be clear, uncertainly and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California. California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”

“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”  

"After more than 30 years in the shoe business, I’ve never seen trade policy create this much chaos in our industry. These unpredictable tariffs are disrupting our supply chain, inflating costs, and forcing small, independent companies to operate in the dark," said Jennet Chow, co-CEO of Evolution Design Lab and Jellypop. "California’s challenge to these unlawful actions is not only necessary — it’s urgent for the future of American manufacturing and entrepreneurship."

“As tariffs continue to drive up costs and disrupt supply chains, it’s our local small businesses — especially those owned by Latino entrepreneurs — that are being hit the hardest. At the Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, we’re doubling down on our efforts to support these businesses through tailored resources, technical assistance, and advocacy. From helping members navigate cost increases to connecting them with local and state programs, we’re ensuring they don’t face this economic uncertainty alone,” said Cathy Rodriguez-Aguirre, President & CEO of Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. “We appreciate Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta for stepping in with bold leadership. Local chambers are proud to be on the frontlines, offering stability, solutions, and a strong voice for the small business community during this challenging time.” 

“After 38 years in business, our very survival is at stake. We’re proud to have always manufactured in America, but our ability to be cost competitive has been threatened, and of course, that puts our jobs at risk,” said Robert Farnsworth, President & CEO of Sonnet Technologies. “We need a predictable supply chain with fair prices, and we can’t get that now.” 

“American families and businesses are already grappling with high costs, and tariffs will only make matters worse," said Maria S. Salinas, President & CEO of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. "We urge policymakers to reconsider, seek alternatives and reverse course.” 

CALIFORNIA IMPACTS 

As the largest economy in the nation — and the fourth largest in the world — President Trump’s illegal tariffs are having a profound impact on California’s budget and how the state can meet the needs of its residents.  

As the country’s largest importer and second largest exporter, California is also more trade-dependent than many states — ports account for much of the country’s import needs, livelihoods, and California relies on these ports for supplies. Many agencies, including the California Department of Public Health, contract with vendors to purchase critical goods which were manufactured outside the United States, including over $8 billion in pharmaceuticals, $300 million in diabetes related supplies, $3 million in pediatric and adult flu vaccines, $700,000 in disease testing kits, among other critical goods. Due to the President’s tariffs California is now facing an impossible choice: accept price increases, no matter how high, resulting in economic harm — or cancel contracts, resulting in economic harm and/or leaving Californians without essential goods.  

Additionally, California is expected to lose a staggering $7.8 billion in tax revenue from personal income tax and corporate revenue as a result of the tariffs’ impact on California taxpayers. This extraordinary loss of essential revenue is exacerbated by the unpredictable and chaotic approach to imposing tariffs which has made it extremely difficult for California and its agencies to effectively budget, plan for the future, and properly serve Californians.

The harms from the current tariffs and their uncertain nature are reflected in California’s recently downgraded economic projection for the 2025-2026 Governor’s Budget. Specifically, this forecast projected increased unemployment and near-term inflation and considerably downgraded projected wage and salary growth, as well as job and personal income growth. These fiscal impacts from tariffs have immediate and devastating effects on the California’s budget, which in turn will yield deep cuts to the state’s programs and services. 

BACKGROUND

In the past few months, President Trump has issued over a dozen executive orders imposing, pausing, reimposing, and escalating tariffs on every U.S. trading partner, and claimed authority to do so under IEEPA.  New tariffs are chaotically contemplated, announced, or delayed nearly every day. The uncertainty surrounding the tariffs is itself causing immediate harm to California by incapacitating its ability to budget and plan for the future and chilling the economy — as businesses and people pause decision-making and lose out on opportunities. 

While difficult to calculate due to their frenzied nature, most estimates put the new average tariff rate at or above 25%. The current IEEPA tariff regime imposes a universal tariff of 10% on all U.S. trading partners, with tariff increases as high 50% on more than 50 specific trading partners set to go into effect on July 9, 2025.  

Separately, Canada and Mexico are subject to IEEPA tariffs of up to 25%, which are currently in effect after being paused and then re-started. China is subject to an ever-changing combination of IEEPA tariffs that reached a staggering rate of 145%, and as of the publication of this press release, plummeted down to 30% under the 90-day pause. The claimed rationales for each of these tariffs is wide-ranging and difficult to follow from trade deficits and foreign trade practices to immigration, crime, and illicit drugs. In response to President Trump’s tariffs, major U.S. trading partners including China, Canada, and the European Union have imposed or announced retaliatory tariffs — China’s retaliatory tariffs alone reached 125%.

NATIONWIDE IMPACTS

The impact of President Trump’s unprecedented IEEPA tariffs is devastating and unprecedented. The near-daily threats to impose new tariffs have already inflicted and continue to inflict serious financial harms on California and states across the nation — with the largest burden expected to fall on the poorest Americans, who cannot absorb the loss of wages or the greater cost of goods. 

President Trump’s tariff regime will:

• Reduce Americans’ incomes and productivity: Tariffs are expected to reduce the labor supply by 546,000 full-time jobs. 
• Cause higher prices and less availability of goods, leading to goods shortages and supply chain disruptions: The Port of Los Angeles saw a third of import volume disappear as of the first week of May, which will hit the availability of goods in stores in only a few weeks. 
• Wreak havoc on our financial systems: The U.S. stock market suffered the largest two-day loss in its history in the two days following the announcement of President Trump’s most sweeping tariffs. 
• Generate enormous economic damage to both the U.S. economy and the California economy: Tariffs, on net, reduce production, income, and efficiency. 
• Raise the probability of a recession: Recessions are damaging to public finance and state budgets — budget pressures can also mean cessation of spending in areas of pressing need, such as public safety, education, and disaster preparedness.

A copy of the filing is available here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed two lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s effort to unlawfully impose immigration enforcement requirements on billions of dollars in annual U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) grants. These grants are unrelated to federal civil immigration enforcement. Attorney General Bonta is leading a coalition of 20 states in filing the DHS lawsuit alongside the attorneys general of Illinois, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, and is leading the same coalition in filing the DOT lawsuit, alongside the attorneys general of Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Maryland. In the lawsuits, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that imposing this new set of conditions across a range of grant programs is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds the Trump Administration’s legal authority, and violates the Spending Clause.

“President Trump doesn’t have the authority to unlawfully coerce state and local governments into using their resources for federal immigration enforcement – and his latest attempt to bully them into doing so is blatantly illegal,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Let’s be clear about what’s happening here: The President is threatening to yank funds to improve our roads, keep our planes in the air, prepare for emergencies, and protect against terrorist attacks if states do not fall in line with his demands. He’s treating these funds, which have nothing to do with immigration enforcement and everything to do with the safety of our communities, as a bargaining chip. But this is not a game. I’ll continue taking the President to court each time he breaks the law and puts Californians’ interests on the line.” 

California receives billions in grant funding from DOT 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. 

California also receives funding from DHS to prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks and other catastrophes. This includes counterterrorism grants, grants that allow states to prepare for terrorism in high-concentration urban areas, emergency preparedness grants, cybersecurity grants, and many others that are similarly not connected to civil immigration enforcement. And state and local law enforcement already work closely with federal agencies on the counterterrorism measures that these grants fund.  

The Constitution is clear: Congress, not the President, decides how federal money is spent. And for decades, Congress has passed laws guaranteeing funding to states like California to protect their security and improve their roads — funds that the federal government generally has by virtue of the taxes paid to it by states like California. Yet despite the constraints imposed by Congress and the Constitution, the Trump Administration is attempting to seize Congress’s power of the purse by imposing an immigration-enforcement conditions on transportation and homeland security grants. In doing so, the Trump Administration is violating two key principles that underlie the American system of checks and balances: agencies in the Executive Branch cannot act contrary to the authority conferred on them by Congress, and the federal government cannot use the spending power to coerce states into adopting its preferred policies.

In filing today’s lawsuits, Attorney General Bonta and the multistate coalition seek to prevent the Trump Administration from imposing immigration-enforcement conditions on any DOT or DHS grants unless the department provides the specific statutory authority that permits it to do so. 

Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin in filing the lawsuits. 

A copy of the DOT lawsuit is available here. A copy of the DHS lawsuit is available here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in his lawsuit to prevent the Trump Administration from dismantling AmeriCorps. 

AmeriCorps is an independent federal agency tasked with engaging Americans in meaningful community-based service that directly address the country’s educational, public safety, and environmental needs — every year, the agency provides opportunities for more than 200,000 Americans to serve their communities. 

Attorney General Bonta and a multistate coalition are suing the Trump Administration over its termination of AmeriCorps grants and the dismantling of the agency though an 85% reduction of its workforce, effectively ending the agency’s ability to continue administering the programs, operations, and funding that make its important work possible. 

More on the lawsuit is available here. A copy of the motion for a preliminary injunction is available here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a statement in response to a court granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a case challenging the Trump Administration’s mass firing of federal workers across the nation. On Thursday, Attorney General Bonta and a coalition of 21 attorneys general submitted an amicus brief in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Trump, in support of the request for a TRO. The TRO issued yesterday immediately blocks the Trump Administration from illegally firing federal workers throughout the federal government until the court considers a preliminary injunction on May 22, 2025. 

“The Trump Administration is attempting to bring the federal government — and the vital services and programs Americans rely on — to a screeching halt,” said Attorney General Bonta. “A court has ordered President Trump to end his illegal mass firing rampage pending a ruling on a preliminary injunction. This won’t undo the damage already sown, but it does send a clear message: The President does not hold the power to illegally fire anyone he wants — and as of Friday night, he must stop doing so." 

Massive federal layoffs substantially disrupt the ability of the states to protect and serve their residents and pose serious risks and harms to their citizens’ health, safety, and lives by impacting state programs focused on  emergency planning and response, infrastructure repair, environmental protection, and  public health, among many more issues.

Attorney General Bonta has forcefully stood up to the Trump Administration's illegal efforts to dismember and impair the federal government though mass firing. 

This week, Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration challenging the unlawful mass firing of roughly 10,000 full-time U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) employees, the consolidation of 28 HHS divisions into 15 divisions, and the closing of half of HHS’s ten regional offices  — in addition to previously filed lawsuits challenging the illegal firing of probationary federal workers and U.S. Department of Education workers. 

Attorney General Bonta has submitted two amicus briefs (here and here) in lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration's dismantling of the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau — actions that include issuing a suspension of work across the agency and terminating probationary employees. These actions rapidly and substantially increase the burden on state agencies to protect consumers. 

Last month, Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit challenging operational changes to Social Security Administration (SSA) policies. These changes, including staffing cuts, field office closures, and the illegal shuttering of departments, have hampered SSA’s ability to help older adults and persons with disabilities access the benefits and services they depend on.

A copy of the TRO can be found here. 

After filing lawsuit on Monday, Attorney General Bonta now seeks preliminary injunctive relief from certain portions of MAHA Directive

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 19 attorneys general in filing a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). On March 27, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. issued a directive to “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA Directive), which included the firing of roughly 10,000 full-time HHS employees, the consolidation of 28 HHS divisions into 15 divisions, and the closing of half of HHS’s ten regional offices — including one in San Francisco. On May 5, the attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration challenging over the MAHA Directive. In today’s motion, they argue that they have satisfied each of the elements for issuance of a preliminary injunction and seek intervention from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to prevent the imminent, irreparable damage resulting from certain portions of the MAHA Directive.

“Absent intervention from the court, our States will suffer irreparable harm. As a result, we’re filing a motion for a preliminary injunction and requesting expedited relief,” said Attorney General Bonta. “With HHS under attack by the Trump Administration, my fellow attorneys general and I are continuing to answer the public’s call to protect this critical Department.”

The States argue that the entire MAHA Directive is arbitrary and capricious, and specifically move for a preliminary injunction setting aside the MAHA Directive as to: (1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; (2) the Center for Tobacco Products (located within the Food & Drug Administration); (3) the Office of Head Start within the Administration for Children and Families; and (4) the Division of Data and Technical Analysis (located within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation), which is responsible for calculating the federal poverty guidelines.

In their motion, the attorneys general argue that: 

• The States are likely to prevail on their claims that the Trump Administration’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act, congressional mandates, and the Constitution. 
• The States have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm in the form of lost funding, information, guidance and support for their complementary State programs — in particular if the formal staff terminations, which were sent on April 1, are allowed to proceed on June 2.
• The public health and social consequences of these actions overwhelmingly militate in favor of preliminary injunctive relief.  

In filing today’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the motion can be found here.