Health Care & Reproductive Rights

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.

Catastrophic plans offer minimal coverage and high deductibles, leaving consumers with greater financial risk 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 19 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter responding to a proposed rule by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that would lead to a massive expansion of catastrophic health insurance plans. Under these plans — which are currently allowed in limited situations and are not required to abide by Affordable Care Act (ACA) rules on covering essential health benefits, preexisting conditions, or not imposing annual and lifetime limits on coverage — health insurance coverage largely does not begin until significant maximum out of pocket costs (MOOP) have already occurred. Right now, that is $10,000 for an individual or $21,200 for a family, which is already too costly. In the 2027 plan year, the proposed rule at issue — entitled the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2027; and Basic Health Program” — would widen catastrophic plans beyond their original limited use and increase MOOP limits to an unaffordable $15,600 for an individual and $31,200 for a family. The comment letter explains that these changes, and numerous others, are arbitrary and capricious and are therefore unlawful if ultimately adopted. 

“The Trump Administration’s plans to expand catastrophic health plans would indeed be catastrophic for families across the country, leaving them with minimal coverage and huge out-of-pocket bills. After failing to extend ACA subsidies and letting premiums soar for millions of Americans at the beginning of the year, the Trump Administration is now trying to clean up its own mess by offering these policies as the answer to rising health care costs,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This proposed rule is a dangerous deception that uses affordability as a misnomer for plans that cover essentially nothing, and my fellow attorneys general and I insist that it should be withdrawn.”

The proposed rule introduces a broad array of substantial changes over its near 600 pages — including many that are identical or substantially similar to a 2025 Marketplace Integrity and Affordability rule that Attorney General Bonta and a multistate coalition challenged in court. That case is still in active litigation. The proposed rule also introduces a range of other changes that harm consumers. This includes increasing the out-of-pocket cost for catastrophic plans to 130% of the statutory limits while also allowing bronze plans to raise cost-sharing above the statutory maximum out-of-pocket limitations. Together, this would promote an increased use of catastrophic plans with the intent to make those plans cover even less than they already do, thereby driving down premiums at the expense of little to no coverage. The rule also creates uncertainty about defrayal determinations, while making all its changes with rushed or flawed data that is riddled with errors and inconsistencies.

The ACA was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010 to increase the number of Americans with health insurance and decrease the cost of healthcare, but the proposed changes to the law at issue will have the opposite effect. Projections indicate that up to two million individuals will lose their health coverage because of the changes — leaving states and residents to bear the cost. Healthier enrollees may drop more extensive coverage. Others, who may enroll in a catastrophic plan and then face a severe medical crisis, might forego needed care until they can switch back to a more generous plan, thus harming their health and potentially increasing the cost of future care. The consequences of these changes will fall hardest on the consumers least able to absorb the surprise medical bills, but all consumers will be affected.

In the letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the proposed rule:

• Is replete with errors and provides insufficient time to implement its substantial changes.
• Reimposes provisions substantially similar to provisions of the 2025 rule — like income verification provisions and the failure-to-reconcile provision — that have been stayed as likely unlawful and arbitrary.
• Reimposes regulations requiring the Federal Exchange to verify 75% of special enrollment period enrollees, despite a court’s prior stay of that provision.
• Contains provisions relating to catastrophic plans, bronze plans, essential health benefits, and other provisions that would harm states and consumers by making healthcare more expensive and dramatically weakening coverage.

In sending this letter, California Attorney General Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Campbell, and New Jersey Attorney General Davenport, are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin.

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.

Proposed rule would eliminate one of the most significant guardrails currently in place on a federal level for the use of AI in healthcare 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that he sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) opposing a proposed rule that would roll back regulations that help ensure technology used by healthcare providers is safe, effective, and deployed without reinforcing unjust racial bias. The proposed rule at issue — entitled “Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability: ASTP/ONC Deregulatory Actions To Unleash Prosperity” — would remove certification criteria requiring that model cards accompany health products that use artificial intelligence (AI). Model cards function like nutrition labels, providing critical information to providers and regulators, such as potential risks to patients and how AI models are developed and tested. 

“New and emerging AI tools are used by many healthcare providers to make life-changing decisions, such as which patients to refer to specialists, which diseases to screen a patient for, or whether a reaction to an infection might be deadly. So, when AI gets it wrong in healthcare, the consequences can be deadly,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I oppose the Trump Administration’s proposed rollback of regulations that require clarity about how AI tools used in healthcare were developed and tested. Delivering safe, effective, and equitable access to healthcare services must be at the forefront of any attempt to integrate AI and healthcare.”

In response to the increase of automated decision-making tools trained on electronic health records, the Biden Administration unveiled the model card requirement. The Biden-era rule, previously supported by Attorney General Bonta, requires healthcare software developers seeking certification of their products to be more transparent about the data they are using to model their algorithms and whether they have been tested to ensure their outcomes are fair and unbiased. This is important because if algorithms are trained on a narrow or limited dataset, they can inadvertently learn and perpetuate biases present in that data. For example, a 2019 study found that a widely used algorithm used to help hospitals identify high-risk patients was racially biased.

In his letter today, Attorney General Bonta warns that HHS’s proposed rule would eliminate one of the most significant guardrails currently in place on a federal level for the use of AI in healthcare and urges the federal administration to reverse course. AI systems are novel and complex, and their inner workings are often not understood even by developers and entities that use AI, resulting in situations where AI tools have generated false information or biased and discriminatory results.

The proposed rule also does not take into consideration the significant burden it is placing on health providers by removing the model card requirement. For example, healthcare providers’ compliance with both federal and state laws becomes much more difficult without model card requirements. The Affordable Care Act prohibits providers from discriminating based on a patient’s protected status. And last year, Attorney General Bonta issued an AI advisory about the application of California law to AI in healthcare, providing guidance specific to healthcare entities about their obligations under California law. Removing the model card requirement eliminates a critical tool for providers to ensure that they are providing nondiscriminatory healthcare in compliance with these laws.

Lawsuit also challenges Secretary Kennedy’s appointments to key federal vaccine panel

OAKLAND — In partnership with Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced co-leading a multistate lawsuit against the Trump Administration over unprecedented changes that were recently made to the childhood immunization schedule, which will make people sicker and strain state resources. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Acting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Jay Bhattacharya, and the CDC and HHS are named as defendants. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the complaint challenges a January 5, 2026 "Decision Memo" by the CDC that stripped seven childhood vaccines — those protecting against rotavirus, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, COVID-19, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) — of their universally recommended status. The lawsuit also challenges Secretary Kennedy's unlawful replacement of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the expert federal panel that has guided U.S. vaccine policy for decades. The coalition of 14 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania is asking the court to declare the new vaccine schedule and the new ACIP appointments unlawful, and to enjoin, vacate, and set aside both the new immunization schedule and the ACIP appointments.

“The Trump Administration’s attacks on science are irresponsible and dangerous. Undermining confidence in vaccines will lead to lower vaccination rates and more infectious disease. It will also drive-up costs for states, including increased Medicaid spending and new expenses to combat misinformation and revise public health guidance,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Public health decisions must remain grounded in truth and facts. That’s why, for the 59th time, I’m taking the Trump Administration to court. My fellow attorneys general and I cannot sit on the sidelines while lives are put at risk and our laws are broken.”

“California is going back to court because the Trump Administration is violating federal law and pushing a reckless, unscientific childhood vaccine schedule that puts kids’ lives at risk. These changes ignore decades of medical evidence and will lead to outbreaks of diseases we’ve already beaten,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “We will not stand by while politics overrides science and endangers our children. Just as we’ve done before, we’re standing up — alongside 14 other states — to defend the law, protect public health, and keep our kids safe.”

Among children born in the U.S. between 1994 and 2023, researchers have estimated that routine childhood vaccinations prevented approximately 508 million cases of illness, 32 million hospitalizations, and over 1.1 million deaths, generating $2.7 trillion in societal savings. This remarkable achievement has been made possible in large part by leading medical scholars and public health experts who have served on the ACIP and established the science-based childhood vaccination schedule that federal agencies, states, and parents have confidently relied on for decades.

Secretary Kennedy is among the most prominent anti-vaccine activists in the country and has significantly contributed to eroding trust in safe and effective vaccines. During Secretary Kennedy’s confirmation process, he made numerous promises in an apparent effort to address concerns about his longstanding anti-vaccine views. One of those promises was that he would not alter the ACIP. The ACIP is a 17-member federal advisory board to the CDC that, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), must be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed,” and not be “inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest[.]” The ACIP develops recommendations for routine immunization of both pediatric and adult populations, which become official CDC policy upon approval by the CDC Director. Once adopted into the CDC immunization schedule, the ACIP’s recommendations determine which vaccines are covered under several federal supported immunization programs.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion column published on June 9, 2025, and ironically titled “HHS Moves to Restore Public Trust in Vaccines,” Secretary Kennedy abruptly announced that he was dismissing all 17 ACIP members. He subsequently appointed new ACIP members. At least nine of the 13 current ACIP members lack the expertise or professional qualifications required for the role, and a majority have publicly expressed views aligned with Secretary Kennedy's well-documented opposition to vaccines. Among other things, Secretary Kennedy failed to issue the required Federal Register notice, to follow FACA’s “fairly balanced” requirement, and to appoint individuals with scientific qualifications as required by ACIP's own charter. 

On December 5, 2025, the ACIP members unlawfully appointed by Secretary Kennedy then voted 8 to 3 to reverse nearly 30 years of CDC policy recommending that the hepatitis B vaccine be universally administered at birth as part of a three-dose series. The hepatitis B vaccine is up to 90 percent effective in preventing perinatal infection when administered within 24 hours of birth. However, the Trump Administration’s reliance on even the unlawfully reconstituted ACIP was temporary. Last month, then-Acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill — who has no medical or scientific background — signed off on a “Decision Memo” that demoted seven vaccines from the universally recommended childhood vaccination schedule to a lesser status that invites confusion and uncertainty. The Decision Memo was not based on any new scientific evidence, any recommendation by a lawfully constituted ACIP, or any systematic review of the available data. Instead, it relied primarily on superficial comparisons to purported "peer countries" — particularly Denmark, which has universal healthcare and a small, homogenous population — while ignoring the fundamental differences between those nations and the United States, as well as the overwhelming evidence supporting the effectiveness of the CDC’s pre-Kennedy childhood immunization schedule.

In response to the lack of science-based leadership from the federal government, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced the creation of the West Coast Health Alliance to create and promulgate communications to the public and to healthcare providers regarding the West Coast Health Alliance’s shared, collective recommendations.

Joining Attorneys General Bonta and Mayes in filing today’s lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and the Governor of Pennsylvania.  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued an updated information bulletin to all California District Attorneys, Chiefs of Police, Sheriffs, and State Law Enforcement Agencies reminding them of California’s laws that prohibit law enforcement cooperation with other states’ investigations and prosecutions of abortions that are legal in California. The updated bulletin comes in response to Louisiana’s recent indictment of a California physician for allegedly helping to provide a medication abortion in violation of Louisiana law. Medication abortion is legal under California law, and law enforcement is prohibited from arresting or cooperating with investigations or prosecutions of individuals seeking, providing, or assisting with access to reproductive healthcare that is legal in California.

“California remains firmly committed to serving as a safe haven for reproductive rights. We will not allow anti-abortion extremists from outside our state to reach in and undermine the protections guaranteed under California law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Whether the attacks are coming from the Trump Administration or another state, I am reminding our law enforcement agencies that they cannot assist in prosecuting individuals who seek or provide reproductive healthcare that is lawful in California.” 

In today’s information bulletin, Attorney General Bonta outlines the following steps for law enforcement who are asked to arrest or otherwise assist with the prosecution of individuals providing or accessing reproductive healthcare in California:

• Law enforcement agencies should be careful, when sharing any information or otherwise cooperating with law enforcement from other states or federal agencies, to prevent information sharing about abortions that are legal under California law.
• Law enforcement agencies should closely examine any out-of-state arrest warrant prior to taking any person into custody. Law enforcement is prohibited from cooperating where the arrest relates to abortions that are legal under California law, even if the warrant may not clearly state that the offense is related to abortion.
• Law enforcement agencies should be aware that an out-of-state warrant does not require arrest or the initiation of extradition proceedings.
• Law enforcement should be careful when applying for authorization from a magistrate to intercept electronic communications or wires, to install trap and trace devices, or for warrants on behalf of other states to ensure the other states are not seeking information relating to abortions that are legal under California law. 
• Law enforcement agencies should immediately contact the California Attorney General’s Office if they have any questions regarding an out-of-state warrant. 

Attorney General Bonta has been a strong defender of reproductive rights. In December, he opposed a push by Congressional Republicans to condition the extension of Affordable Care Act enhanced subsidies on additional abortion restrictions. He has also pressed forward with his lawsuit against Providence St. Joseph Hospital, which alleges that the hospital violated multiple California laws due to its refusal to provide emergency abortion care to people experiencing obstetric emergencies. In addition, Attorney General Bonta played a leading role in opposing the Trump Administration’s efforts to eliminate veterans’ and their families’ access to abortion care, and launched a statewide survey to assess how hospital emergency departments are complying with reproductive healthcare laws, particularly when abortion care is the medically necessary emergency treatment.

Californians who believe their right to reproductive healthcare, including accessing abortion, has been violated should immediately file a complaint at ‪https://oag.ca.gov/report.

Funding freeze by HHS was imposed immediately and exclusively on five Democratic-led states — California, New York, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota — and all five states are part of today’s lawsuit 

Lawsuit alleges that funding freeze is unlawful and unconstitutional, pushes back on extraordinarily broad request for documents

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for illegally freezing over $10 billion in federal funding for child care and family assistance programs. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the lawsuit by Attorney General Bonta — alongside New York Attorney General Letitia James, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison — is in response to the funding freeze imposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) earlier this week. According to HHS, the funding freeze was being imposed immediately and exclusively on the five Democratic-led states because of “serious concerns about widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars.” HHS has not provided any evidence at all to support those claims. In addition, HHS is demanding that, within 14 days, the five states produce virtually all documents associated with the implementation of the three critical programs impacted by the funding freeze, as well as years of data — including personally identifiable information — concerning individuals who received benefits under those programs. In their lawsuit, the attorneys general allege that the funding freeze violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Separation of Powers, and the U.S. Constitution’s Appropriations Clause and Spending Clause. They ask the court to block the funding freeze and the extraordinarily overbroad demands for documents and data. The attorneys general are also seeking a temporary restraining order in light of the irreparable harm that their states face. 

“The American people are sick and tired of President Trump’s lawlessness, lies, and misinformation campaigns. It is especially pathetic that, once again, his Administration’s actions are inflicting harm on the most vulnerable among us. As a society, we are rightly judged by how we treat our neighbors in need, and this is a shameful way to treat them,” said Attorney General Bonta. “With each passing day, his ‘America First’ rhetoric is exposed as nothing more than smoke and mirrors. If he thinks that his attacks on Democratic-led states will cause us to bend to his will, he is sorely mistaken. For the 53rd time, the Trump Administration has broken the law, and for the 53rd time, I’m taking them to court.” 

HHS’s funding freeze impacts the following programs, which benefit millions of Californians including children, families, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities, and for which funds were appropriated by Congress: The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) program, and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program. Across the five targeted states, the $10 billion funding freeze includes $7.35 billion for the TANF program, $2.4 billion for the CCDF program, and $869 million for the SSBG program. Of the $10 billion, approximately $5 billion in funds are frozen in California alone.

The letters from HHS imposing the funding freeze provide no factual or legal basis for blocking access to these critical funds and target the five Democratic-led states based solely on unsupported and unfounded allegations of “fraud.” The TANF program provides block grants to states, which in turn use the funds to offer cash aid and supportive services to families in need. The CCDF program is also distributed in block grants by the federal government. The funds are primarily used to provide low-income families with funding for child care, so that their parents can work or go to school. The SSBG program supports social services, such as Child Welfare Services, Foster Care, Deaf Access, and CalWORKS, for low-income adults and children.

In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and his colleagues allege that the funding freeze violates:

• (1) The APA. The attorneys general assert that the funding freeze exceeds statutory authority, is contrary to law, ultra vires, and arbitrary and capricious. 
• (2) The Separation of Powers. The attorneys general assert that the funding freeze usurps Congress’s legislative function and imposes new conditions on appropriated federal funds for which the states had no notice. 
• (3) The U.S. Constitution’s Appropriations Clause and Spending Clause. The attorneys general assert that the executive branch is infringing on Congress’s appropriations power by declining to expend appropriated funds.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously affirmed a lower court’s decision, which permanently barred the Trump Administration from decimating funds that support cutting-edge medical and public health research at universities and research institutions across the country — including at the University of California (UC) and at the California State University (CSU). The funds at issue — known as “indirect cost” reimbursements — cover expenses to facilitate biomedical research, such as lab, faculty, infrastructure, and utility costs. As part of a coalition of 22 attorneys general, Attorney General Bonta sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on February 10, 2025 to block the attempted funding cuts from taking effect.

“The Trump Administration wanted to eviscerate funding for medical research that helps develop new cures and treatments for diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s. Let that sink in: Life-saving research — proudly happening at UCs and CSUs across our state — was under attack,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I stepped in to stop these illegal actions. The district court sided with us, and now, the First Circuit has, too. We’re starting the new year by building on our previous successes and securing yet another important victory against the Trump Administration.”

On Friday, February 7, 2025, the NIH announced in Supplemental Guidance that it would abruptly slash indirect cost rates to an across-the-board 15% rate, which is significantly less than the cost required to perform critical medical research. The NIH purported to make this cut effective the very next business day, Monday, February 10, giving universities and institutions no time to plan for the enormous budget gaps they would be facing. Less than six hours after Attorney General Bonta filed suit against the Trump Administration on February 10, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order against NIH, barring its attempts to cut the critical research funding. The court subsequently issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, which was converted into a permanent injunction at the parties’ request. The Trump Administration appealed that ruling to the First Circuit. 

In today’s decision, the First Circuit wrote that “the public-health benefits of NIH-funded research are enormous” and concluded that:

• “[T]he district court properly exercised subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims,” and
• “NIH’s attempt, through its Supplemental Guidance, to impose a 15% indirect cost reimbursement rate violates the congressionally enacted appropriations rider and HHS’s duly adopted regulations.”

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta secured a multistate settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that permanently resolves claims made in a lawsuit he co-led in April challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful delays in reviewing National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant applications. As part of the agreement, which remains subject to court approval, HHS commits to resuming the usual process for considering NIH grant applications on a prompt, agreed-upon timeline. The aforementioned lawsuit filed by Attorney General Bonta also alleged that NIH had terminated large swaths of already-issued grants for projects that are currently underway based on the projects’ perceived connection to “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI),” “transgender issues,” “vaccine hesitancy,” and other topics disfavored by the current Administration. Today’s agreement limits NIH from applying those directives while reviewing applications for new grants.

“I am pleased that the Trump Administration has agreed to stop delaying the review process for NIH grants. That, of course, should have never happened in the first place, and it’s why my fellow attorneys general and I took the Administration to court earlier this year,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Going forward, we remain committed to ensuring HHS fulfills its obligations under the agreement.”

NIH grant applications typically undergo several rounds of rigorous review by subject-matter experts and agency officials who assess each proposal’s scientific merit in light of funding availability and agency priorities. Earlier this year, the Administration took the unprecedented step of cancelling upcoming meetings for the agency’s review panels and delaying the scheduling of future meetings. The Administration also indefinitely withheld issuing final decisions on applications that had already received approval from the relevant review panels, leaving the plaintiff states awaiting decisions on billions of dollars in requested research funding.  

As a result of the Administration’s delays and terminations, the states alleged that their public research institutions experienced significant harm. In California, NIH funding creates over 50,000 jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity. Over the decades, this funding has brought humanity the eradication of polio, discovery of genes that cause breast and ovarian cancer, and the transformation of HIV from a fatal disease into one people can live with.

Today’s agreement complements the coalition’s victory in an earlier phase of the lawsuit, in which the plaintiff states challenged unlawful directives that targeted NIH projects based on their perceived connection to “DEI,” “transgender issues,” “vaccine hesitancy,” and other topics disfavored by the Trump Administration. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found for the plaintiff states and set aside the unlawful directives; a hearing on the federal government’s appeal of that decision is scheduled for January 6, 2026.

Joining Attorney General Bonta in reaching this settlement are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

Tobacco products not appearing on Unflavored Tobacco List are ineligible for sale in California

OAKLAND — Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 3218 (Wood, 2024), California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced the publication of the first-ever Unflavored Tobacco List (UTL), a list of unflavored tobacco products that are lawful for sale under California’s flavored tobacco restrictions. Any covered tobacco product not appearing on the UTL is deemed a flavored tobacco product and ineligible for sale. To be considered for the initial publication of the UTL, tobacco manufacturers and importers were required to submit completed applications by October 9, 2025. Applications submitted by October 9 were considered for today’s UTL and received a response — whether that was an approval, denial, or request for additional information. Registration of unflavored tobacco products may be completed at any time at https://utl.doj.ca.gov/user/login. Manufacturers and retailers are warned that, absent registration and inclusion on the UTL, such products are and will remain subject to seizure and penalties by enforcement agencies. Attorney General Bonta sponsored AB 3218. 

“California is continuing to lead by example. With the publication of our first-ever Unflavored Tobacco List, tobacco manufacturers, importers, state and local law enforcement agencies, and the public now have clear guidance on which unflavored tobacco products can be legally sold in our state,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Safeguarding public health, particularly for our youth, has been and will continue to be a top priority. The Unflavored Tobacco List will help further reduce tobacco use among young people and strengthen accountability for companies and individuals who break our laws.”

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has primary responsibility for enforcement of California’s flavored tobacco ban. To report a retailer suspected of selling flavored tobacco products, please call, 1-800-5-ASK-4-ID (800-527-5443) or email CDPH at OYTE@cdph.ca.gov. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) is also charged with enforcing the flavored tobacco ban. If you suspect a retailer sells illegal flavored tobacco products or is violating licensing or tax laws, please visit CDTFA’s Report Suspected Violations webpage or call CDTFA at 1-888-334-3300.

As explained in this California Department of Justice (DOJ) Information Bulletin, state and local law enforcement agencies are authorized to enforce the state’s restrictions on flavored tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers. The UTL aims to assist in providing a resource for these agencies in their enforcement operations. DOJ’s enforcement priority will continue to be focused on “obviously flavored” tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers. For tobacco products that are not included in the initial publication of the UTL and are not obviously flavored (including hand-rolled leaf cigars), DOJ intends to initially focus on providing manufacturers with education on the statutory requirements and registration process, rather than taking immediate enforcement action.

In 2020, Senate Bill 793 (Hill, 2020) banned flavored tobacco products (subject to certain exceptions) and tobacco product flavor enhancers in California. AB 3218, which went into effect on January 1, 2025, amended the flavor ban by expanding the definition of flavored products, expanding enforcement power, and creating the UTL. The Attorney General’s Office issued emergency regulations to implement AB 3218, in part, by describing how tobacco manufacturers and importers of unflavored tobacco products may apply for the placement of their products on the UTL and what information those manufacturers and importers must provide. The regulations also establish fees for initial and renewed placement on the list, and describe how civil penalties against distributors, wholesalers, and delivery sellers of products not appearing on the UTL may be assessed and appealed. 

Questions regarding registration and submissions can be directed to UTLInbox@doj.ca.gov.