U.S. Supreme Court

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 24 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) challenging its final rule which unlawfully attempts to interfere with states’ constitutional authority to administer elections by allowing USPS to reject mail, offer non-postal services, and discriminate among users of the mail. The final rule follows President Trump’s second elections-related Executive Order (EO) — No. 14399 — which required USPS to issue regulations prohibiting the mailing of ballots for voters who are not included on new USPS lists of “enrolled” mail voters. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump Administration’s emergency request to stay an injunction that had previously blocked key provisions of the order from being implemented for the November elections in the coalition states. The Supreme Court ruled that the coalition’s challenge to the EO was filed too early, but that the coalition could still challenge the USPS rule implementing that EO. In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the USPS final rule is a catastrophe for voting rights that is unconstitutional, contrary to statute, and ultra vires, because it interferes with states' authority to administer elections, imposes immediate burdens on elections officials, harms their preparations for upcoming elections, and jeopardizes mail-in voting. The coalition is also filing a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block the rule's implementation while litigation continues.

“This mail-in voting rule is an unlawful overreach that shows just how far President Trump will go to control elections, but as I’ve said before, this fight is far from over and we are confident that the facts and the law are on our side,” said Attorney General Bonta. “On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to fully close the door on the President’s attempt to interfere in our election administration. Today, we’re taking legal action to stop this unlawful rule in its tracks and ensure that voters can exercise their constitutional right to vote. Let’s be clear: the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to regulate elections — not the President and not USPS. Ballots are an extension of our voices and we’re asking the court to ensure that every person has the right to make theirs heard.”

"Donald Trump does not run elections. States do. And his latest attack on democracy is proof of how weak he has become,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “California will continue to lead the way in defending democracy — using every tool at our disposal and every minute in our day. This perilous moment in history demands no less from us.” 

BACKGROUND

On March 31, President Trump issued an EO attempting to establish a national list of eligible voters and directing the U.S. Postal Service to transmit mail ballots only to voters on the list. On August 21, USPS announced a new rule implementing the President’s demands that require states to enroll every voter who is eligible to vote by mail with USPS and tasking USPS with compiling the enrolled voters into state-specific lists. The rule also establishes new design requirements for mail-in ballot envelopes, which states are required to meet and get approved by USPS. USPS also stated it will not deliver ballots to voters who do not appear on the USPS-generated lists and will not deliver ballots in envelopes that fail to comply with the rule’s new standards.

However, it is states — not USPS or the President — that have authority to regulate federal elections, subject to preemption only by Congress. This USPS rule violates the Constitution, and upends successful, longstanding vote-by-mail procedures that communities are entitled to under state law. Over the past several decades, voting by mail has become increasingly utilized by voters across the country — including President Trump. During the 2024 general election, nearly 1 in 3 Americans voted by mail. Since the inception of vote-by-mail, Congress has never exercised its authority to limit it, and in fact, has only taken action to expand and protect mail voting for military and overseas voters. Congress has also never authorized USPS to monitor or control the transmission of mail ballots. 

This rule brazenly seizes power over mail-in voting and contravenes restrictions on USPS’s ability to reject mail, to offer-non postal services, and to discriminate among users of the mail. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the rule is inconsistent with USPS’s governing statutes, ignores USPS’s procedural requirements, violates the Privacy Act, and is inconsistent with federal voting rights law. The coalition asks the court to strike down the unlawful rule and issue a temporary restraining order preventing the rule from taking effect while the litigation proceeds.

In filing this lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown co-lead the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 23 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today responded to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision granting the Trump Administration’s emergency request to stay an injunction that blocked key provisions of President Trump’s second elections-related Executive Order, Executive Order No. 14399 for the midterm elections this year. The decision stays the June 2026 order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that had blocked those provisions in the plaintiff states for the 2026 midterm elections. The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on whether the Executive Order is lawful. Instead, it found that the coalition’s challenge was premature because, when the lawsuit was filed, the Administration had not taken the actions needed to implement it. The coalition intends to challenge those actions as they occur and as necessary to protect states’ administration of elections.

“Today, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for the Trump Administration to try to make it harder for Americans to vote. But today’s decision was not a ruling on the merits, and this fight is far from over,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As I have said from the beginning, the U.S. Constitution gives the President no authority over how states administer their elections. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to fight back against unlawful federal overreach whenever it occurs.”

The June 2026 order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts had blocked a provision that would have required the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to issue regulations prohibiting the mailing of ballots for voters who are not included on new USPS lists of “enrolled” mail voters. The order also blocked provisions directing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to create voter eligibility lists for each state — lists the government itself concedes would be incomplete — and threatening state election officials with prosecution for providing ballots to voters that the federal government deems ineligible.

The Trump Administration appealed the district court’s ruling, arguing that the plaintiff states’ suit was premature, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit declined to pause it. The Trump Administration then asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay to temporarily block the lower court ruling while its appeal moved forward. On August 3, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition filed a response urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the request. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the emergency stay, which could allow the challenged provisions to take effect while the appeal proceeds.

The case began in April 2026, when Attorney General Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown co-led the coalition in challenging Executive Order No. 14399. Joining them were the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin, as well as Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1506 (AB 1506), today released a report on the death of Noe Rodriguez Martinez from an officer-involved shooting in Santa Ana, California on December 1, 2024. The incident involved officers from the Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD). The report is part of the California Department of Justice's (DOJ) ongoing efforts to provide transparency and accountability in law enforcement practices. The report provides a detailed analysis of the incident and outlines DOJ's findings. After a thorough investigation, DOJ concluded that criminal charges were not appropriate in this case. 

“We hope this report provides a measure of closure for the community, law enforcement, and the family of Mr. Martinez. AB 1506 is a critical transparency and accountability tool, and our hope for this report is to provide some understanding and aid in advancing towards a safer California for all,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Together, we aim to foster a system that not only protects the rights of individuals but also promotes trust and accountability between law enforcement and our communities.”   
 
On December 1, 2024, SAPD responded to a call of an adult male walking in downtown Santa Ana carrying what appeared to be a shotgun. Officers contacted Mr. Martinez and asked him repeatedly to drop the shotgun. Mr. Martinez repeatedly failed to comply with officers' requests and instead, removed one hand from the shotgun and appeared to start leveling it. As a result, the officers fatally shot Mr. Martinez. The gun was recovered near Mr. Martinez’s body and was later determined to be a replica pump-action shotgun.  

Under AB 1506, which requires DOJ to investigate all incidents of officer-involved shootings resulting in the death of an unarmed civilian in the state, DOJ conducted a thorough investigation into this incident and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officers involved acted without the intent to defend themselves and others from what they reasonably believed to be the imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution of the officers, and no further action will be taken in this case.

As part of its investigation, DOJ has identified three recommendations related to this incident. The first is that SAPD evaluate its firearms training, including on officer awareness of backdrop, to determine whether modifications to its training curriculum are needed to ensure officers are adequately trained on how to minimize potential risks to bystanders. The second recommendation is that SAPD provide training on the continued use of force on persons who appear to have been rendered unconscious or incapacitated by bullets, particularly the use of less lethal launchers on such persons. The third recommendation is that SAPD evaluate its training on the duty to render medical aid to injured persons and develop any additional training necessary to provide officers specific guidance on how to determine when officers can more promptly provide medical care when reasonable and safe to do so following a use of force incident with an armed individual. 

Policy, policing, and community intervention have positively transformed California public safety 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced the publication of the California Criminal Justice Statistical Reports for 2025, a suite of annual reports covering Homicide in California, Crime in California, Use of Force Incident Reporting, Juvenile Justice in California, and Crime Guns, Inspections, and Handguns in California. The information contained in the reports reflects statistics for 2025 as submitted by California law enforcement agencies and other criminal justice entities. The reports provide policymakers, researchers, law enforcement, and members of the public with vital statewide information on criminal justice statistics in California to support informed policy choices based on data and analysis and help protect the safety and well-being of all Californians. 

“Transparent, accurate data helps us understand what is happening in our communities and where more work is needed,” said Attorney General Bonta. “These numbers prove that the investments in community violence intervention over recent years and the commitment to effective partnerships and collaboration between federal, state, and local governments, law enforcement agencies, and community partners are working. Our policing has gotten smarter, more organized, and more coordinated. We’ve created successful organized retail theft programs, human trafficking and fentanyl task forces, and programs targeting violent criminals. These partnerships have led to more success, more accountability and more arrests, which we know is a much better deterrent than disproportionately lengthy and expensive sentences. I want to thank the state and local law enforcement agencies, community-based organizations, gun safety advocacy groups, and state and local leaders who work day in and day out to keep our communities safe. At DOJ, public safety is priority number one and always will be.”

"Every Californian deserves to feel safe in their community," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "These historic results show that when we invest in our communities, support law enforcement, crack down on organized crime, and expand prevention and intervention efforts, we can save lives and improve public safety. California is proving that smart, sustained investments are making a real difference for families across our state." 

DOJ publishes these annual reports to provide the public with statewide criminal justice statistics and to support data-informed decision-making. California is continuing its transition from the decades-old legacy reporting system to the California Incident-Based Reporting System (CIBRS), which will allow agencies to report more detailed information about individual incidents once fully implemented. While that transition continues, the format of this year’s reports remains consistent with prior years.

CIBRS is designed to provide policymakers, law enforcement, researchers, and the public with more context and specificity about crime and public safety trends in California. Law enforcement agencies across the state are at different stages of moving to the new reporting system, and DOJ continues to work with agencies during the transition.

To support completeness and accuracy during this transition period, DOJ continues to accept data submitted through both the legacy system and CIBRS. As a result, the 2025 reports include information collected under both reporting methods. The Attorney General encourages researchers, academics, policymakers, and members of the public to review the data and use it to inform public discussion about California’s criminal justice system. It is important to note that not all agencies were able to submit a full year of data for 2025. For additional context, please reference the “Understanding the Data, Characteristics and Known Limitations” sections in the Crime in California and Homicide in California 2025 reports. 

Highlights and brief descriptions from each report released today are available below: 

Homicide in California 2025 includes data on reported homicides and related information, including victim demographics, homicide arrests, persons sentenced to death, peace officers feloniously killed in the line of duty, and justifiable homicides. Some key findings include:

• In 2025, the homicide rate decreased 18.6%, moving from 4.3 per 100,000 people in 2024 to 3.5 per 100,000 people in 2025, which is a record low.
• California reported 1,374 homicides in 2025, a 17.5% decrease from the 1,666 homicides reported in 2024.
• Firearms remained the most common weapon used in homicides. In cases where the weapon was identified, 66.9% of homicides in 2025 involved a firearm.
• Among homicides where the victim’s relationship to the suspect was identified, 49.4% of victims were killed by a friend or acquaintance; 27.4% by a stranger; and 18.0% by their spouse, parent, or child.
• For homicides with a known contributing circumstance, 40.1% resulted from an unspecified argument, 19.8% were gang-related, 14.1% were domestic violence-related, and 3.5% occurred in connection with the commission of a rape, robbery, or burglary.
• There were 1,269 homicide arrests in 2025, down 2.8% from the 1,305 homicide arrests reported in 2024.

Crime in California 2025 summarizes statewide statistics on reported crimes, arrests, dispositions of adult felony arrests, adult probation, criminal justice personnel, civilians’ complaints against peace officers, domestic violence-related calls for assistance, anti-reproductive rights crimes, law enforcement officers killed or assaulted, and violent crimes against senior citizens. Some key findings include:

• The statewide violent crime rate decreased 10.2% in 2025, from 480.3 per 100,000 people in 2024 to 431.1 in 2025, remaining well below California’s historical peak of 1,103.9 recorded in 1992.
• The property crime rate decreased 14.3%, from 2,082.7 in 2024 to 1,785.8 in 2025.
• The total arrest rate increased 3.6%, from 2,673.8 in 2024 to 2,770.4 in 2025.
• Domestic violence-related calls for assistance decreased from 163,024 in 2024 to 157,416 in 2025.
• The number of law enforcement officers assaulted in the line of duty increased from 13,547 in 2024 to 14,345 in 2025.

Use of Force Incident Reporting 2025 summarizes incidents that meet the reporting criteria in California Government Code section 12525.2, including use of force resulting in serious bodily injury or death, or the discharge of a firearm by a civilian, peace officer, or both. Some key findings include:

• In 2025, 619 incidents involved use of force resulting in serious bodily injury or death of a civilian or officer, or the discharge of a firearm.
• In 2025, 633 civilians were involved in incidents that involved the discharge of a firearm or use of force resulting in serious bodily injury or death. Of those civilians, 572 were male and 58 were female, and:
• 50.7% were Hispanic
• 26.9% were white
• 17.5% were Black
• In 2025, 1,257 officers were involved in incidents. Of those officers:
• 81.8% were not injured
• 17.8% were injured
• 0.4% died

Juvenile Justice in California 2025 tracks key points in the juvenile justice process, including arrests, referrals to probation departments, petitions filed, and dispositions for juveniles tried in juvenile and adult courts. Some key findings include:

• Juvenile arrests decreased 7.0%, from 32,874 in 2024 to 30,568 in 2025.
• Of the 30,568 juvenile arrests, 46.7% were for felony offenses, 52.1% were for misdemeanor offenses, and 1.2% were for status offenses, which are acts that would not be classified as crimes if committed by adults, such as curfew violations, truancy, running away, and incorrigibility.
• Among juveniles referred to county probation departments, 91.5% were referred by law enforcement agencies.
• Of juvenile cases referred to county probation departments, 35.1% were closed at intake with no further action taken.
• Of the 95 juveniles whose cases were processed in adult court, 46.3% resulted in a conviction.

Crime Guns, Inspections, and Handguns in California 2025 examines recovered firearms that were illegally possessed, used in a crime, or suspected of being used in a crime — also known as “crime guns” — including information about the sources and origins of those firearms. The report also includes firearm dealer and ammunition vendor inspection data, information about the Bureau of Firearms’ correction process, and details about the Roster of Certified Handguns, which lists handguns approved for retail sale in California because they meet specified testing and safety requirements. Some key findings include:

• In 2025, law enforcement agencies in California recovered and entered 46,288 unique crime guns with identifiable serial numbers into the Automated Firearm System (AFS).
• Of the crime guns entered in 2025, 8,877 were unserialized, including 6,940 identified as unserialized ghost guns.
• The number of ghost guns recovered as crime guns peaked at 10,969 in 2021 and has decreased every year since, declining by over one-third between 2021 and 2025.
• In 2025, 13,613 recovered crime guns were traceable to 1,213 distinct California firearm dealers.
• During 2025, DOJ completed 316 inspections of firearm dealers and ammunition vendors, including 221 firearm dealer inspections and 95 ammunition vendor inspections.
• In 2025, 117 handguns were added to the Handgun Roster, 27 were removed, and 6 were denied for listing. As of December 31, 2025, there were 1,020 handguns on the Roster. 

All of the reports are available here. The underlying data associated with the annual reports is available on OpenJustice here.

**The information provided below is based on preliminary details regarding an ongoing investigation, which may continue to evolve**

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that the California Department of Justice (DOJ), pursuant to Assembly Bill 1506 (AB 1506), is investigating and will independently review an officer-involved shooting (OIS) that occurred on January 22, 2026 in Richmond, California. The OIS incident which resulted in the death of one individual occurred around 7:20 a.m. and involved the Richmond Police Department. 

Following notification of this incident, DOJ’s California Police Shooting Investigation Team initiated an investigation in accordance with AB 1506 mandates. Upon completion of the investigation, it will be turned over to DOJ’s Special Prosecutions Section within the Criminal Law Division for independent review. Anyone who has information related to this OIS incident and wishes to report it may do so by calling (916) 210-2871. 

More information on DOJ’s role and responsibilities under AB 1506 is available here: https://oag.ca.gov/ois-incidents.

Urges U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a decision allowing habitual drug users to possess firearms if not impaired at the time of arrest

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a bipartisan coalition of 20 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in United States v. Hemani, a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the brief, the attorneys general support the federal government’s argument that a federal law prohibiting unlawful drug users from possessing firearms is constitutional and ask the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate a lower court decision finding the law in question to be in violation of the Second Amendment.  

“Drugs and guns are a dangerous combination. Potentially dangerous drug users should not possess firearms — this is a commonsense notion to prevent people who use drugs from harming themselves, their loved ones, or their communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Both red and blue states alike — recognizing the dangers posed by combining habitual drug use with firearms — have imposed firearm restrictions to prevent gun violence. Today I urge the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court decision, uphold public safety, and keep firearms out of the reach of people who are drug users.”

The underlying case concerns the possession of a firearm by an active marijuana, cocaine, and promethazine user. Under federal law, title 18, section 922(g)(3) of the United States Code specifically bars an individual who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing any firearm or ammunition, or shipping or transporting the same in interstate commerce. The defendant in this case moved to dismiss the indictment as a violation of his Second Amendment rights, and a lower court determined that federal law only covers habitual drug users who were intoxicated at the time of arrest. 

In the brief, the attorneys general highlight the unique danger that habitual drug users pose in possessing firearms, and how that danger is separate and apart from individuals who possess firearms while intoxicated. In addition to the clear public safety risks presented by possessing firearms while impaired, habitual drug use can cause some individuals to experience chronic psychological disturbances that affect their conduct and decision making, including their ability to safely handle firearms. Further, because much drug use is illicit, habitual drug users frequently interact with the illegal drug trade, which is inherently dangerous and drives criminality. 

In light of these public safety risks, the vast majority of states regulate firearm use by habitual drug users, similarly to federal law. The widespread nature of these laws reflects the wide consensus that habitual drug users are a risk to public safety and should therefore not have access to firearms. California’s own law under California Penal Code § 29800(a)(1) prohibits possession of firearms by any individual “who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug.”   

In submitting the brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the states of Illinois, the District of Columbia, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a bipartisan coalition of 30 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the brief, the attorneys general ask the U.S. Supreme Court not to allow the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) to preempt state-law claims against freight brokers for the negligent selection of drivers who harm motorists. Tort law is an important tool used to remedy civil wrongs, and its primary purpose is to compensate victims of wrongful acts, including negligence. 

“Today, I join attorneys general across the political spectrum in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the notion that federal law preempts state laws that protect roadway safety and provide remedies when predictable accidents occur as a result of negligent hiring decisions by commercial-trucking businesses,” said Attorney General Bonta. “States must preserve the right to make our roadways safe and ensure companies that are negligent about roadway safety are held accountable and compensate the victims they harm.” 

The underlying case is a personal injury action brought by the victim of an automobile accident against the driver of a tractor-trailer, the trucking company that employed the driver, and the freight broker that hired the trucking company. The district court held that the freight broker could not be held responsible for the accident because the negligent selection theory was preempted by the FAAAA. In the amicus brief, the attorneys general explain that states have historically held the authority to regulate the safety of their roadways through statutes and tort law and argue that the laws at issue were not among the narrow category of price, route, or service regulations preempted by the FAAAA, and that the FAAAA expressly preserves broad state authority to enact and enforce safety laws, including laws such as these. 

In filing the brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Ohio, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 23 attorneys general filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner who is challenging President Trump’s illegal attempt to fire her without cause.

A copy of the brief can be found here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition 23 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Donald J. Trump v. Lisa D. Cook, a case concerning President Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her position on the Federal Reserve Board. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is the primary entity that oversees the Federal Reserve System, the U.S. central bank, which is tasked with promoting financial system stability, supervising and regulating financial institutions, and promoting consumer protection. In the brief, the attorneys general ask the U.S. Supreme Court to allow Governor Cook to remain in her post while litigation in the case proceeds, citing concerns that given the Federal Reserve’s responsibilities, increased institutional uncertainty from the fallout of Governor Cook’s removal would cause downstream economic harms on states.

“The Federal Reserve Board serves all Americans by promoting the health and stability of the U.S. economy and financial system. By continuing his attempt to remove Governor Lisa Cook — one of seven essential board members — President Trump is not only undermining the Board’s independence but also threatening to throw an institution that safeguards California’s economy into chaos,” said Attorney General Bonta. “From designing their state budgets to taking out a mortgage, the State of California and its people depend on stability, independence, and good governance at the Federal Reserve. I urge the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the preliminary injunction that has allowed Governor Cook to continue her work on the Board of Governors while litigation proceeds.”

In August 2025, President Trump attempted to remove Lisa Cook from the Board of Governors “for cause.” The purported “cause” was an allegation that Governor Cook had defrauded mortgage lenders by claiming two primary residences to receive lower interest rates in 2021, prior to her appointment to the Federal Reserve. The U.S. Department of Justice has opened an investigation into the matter, but the allegations have not been substantiated to date. For the Federal Reserve Board to function as Congress intended, dismissals of governors for cause must mean something more specific than an unreviewable reason left entirely to the President’s discretion. Otherwise, “for cause” then means “for whatever reason the President decides,” which is nothing more than termination at the President’s discretion because he does not like the person or the decisions the board is making — an approach to governing the U.S. financial system that Congress has rejected. Despite the lack of evidence, a premature investigation, and a District Court ruling that Governor Cook should stay in her post while the investigation proceeds, President Trump is again attempting to move forward with the removal of Governor Cook. 

In the brief, the attorneys general argue that allowing President Trump to immediately remove Governor Cook from the Board of Governors would undermine the judiciary's important role in ensuring the President acts within his authority. Concerningly, given the Federal Reserve Board’s critical role in promoting the stability of the financial system, Governor Cook’s sudden remove is expected to likely result in higher and more volatile inflation, unemployment, and market conditions that may harm states by: 

• Undermining the projections used to craft state budgets; 
• Increasing costs to provide state services; and 
• Increasing costs for state services to support people who are unemployed. 

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

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.

Federal law invoked by Trump Administration, IEEPA, makes no mention of “tariffs,” “duties,” or even “customs,” “taxes,” or “imposts.”  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, opposing the Trump Administration’s persistent efforts to impose illegal tariffs that have sent shockwaves and uncertainty through global economies, markets, and consumers. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta argues that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the President has used as a vehicle to levy the tariffs in question, does not delegate any authority to the President to impose tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump is scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, November 5, 2025. President Trump’s illegal tariffs are causing uncertainty and unpredictability, which is bad for business, bad for the economy, and as the fourth largest economy in the world, bad for California. In April, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs without the consent of Congress. 

“President Trump’s illegal tariffs impact businesses, consumers, and states across the nation — and they are illegal. Any attempt by the Trump Administration to interpret IEEPA as giving it the power to impose tariffs is a feat of mental gymnastics,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “No matter how you spin it, no matter what definitions the Administration reaches for, 2 + 2 does not equal 10. Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes — if Congress had intended to grant the President such extraordinary authority, it would have said so. Today, California asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

“Trump’s illegal tariffs are punishing American families and small businesses. It’s not policy or business acumen — it’s betrayal and grift. Americans are struggling to put food on their tables, and Trump’s response is to send $20 billion in taxpayer money to Argentina and leave our farmers and ranchers out to dry," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "While Trump continues to play political games and make shady deals for his own benefit, California will keep fighting on your behalf. We urge the court to stand firm against authoritarianism and uphold the rule of law that it is sworn to protect.”

Since February 2025, President Trump has issued an unprecedented and chaotic series of executive orders imposing tariffs, ranging from 10% to 145% on nearly every trading partner of the United States. California is the fourth-largest economy in the world and the largest importer of goods among the 50 states. The illegal tariffs imposed by President Trump using IEEPA threaten to devastate California’s economy, depriving it of $25 billion and more than 64,000 jobs. 

Instead of invoking any of the Tariff or Trade Acts as authority for his unilateral overhaul of our nation’s tariff system, the President invoked IEEPA, a federal statute enacted in 1977 that allows the President to take certain specified actions in response to a declared national emergency resulting from an unusual and extraordinary foreign threat. In the nearly fifty years since its enactment, no President has ever before invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs because IEEPA does not reference the power to tax or tariff at all.   

Moreover, every time that Congress has delegated tariff authority to the President, it has referred explicitly to tariffs, using terms like “duties” or “tariffs.” IEEPA makes no mention of “tariffs,” “duties,” or any similar term, such as “customs,” “taxes,” or “imposts.” IEEPA includes the phrase “regulate . . . importation,” which the Administration has taken to mean impose tariffs — despite the Administration’s inability to point to a single other statute in the entirety of the U.S. Code where “regulate” has been understood to bestow such power to the President. 

BACKGROUND:

Attorney General Bonta is committed to challenging the illegal tariffs that threaten California jobs, businesses, and consumers — tariffs that have sent shockwaves through financial markets, businesses, and consumers in every corner of the globe. The California Department of Justice has challenged President Trump’s illegal tariffs on all fronts:

In April, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs without the consent of Congress. In June, a judge granted California's request for dismissal to allow the state to appeal its case challenging the Trump Administration’s illegal tariffs after the Administration asked that the case be transferred to the Court of International Trade — a motion that California opposed. The dismissal kept the case in California and allowed California to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. California’s case has been held in abeyance by the Ninth Circuit pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of these cases. For more information on California’s case, please see here.

Other states and entities nationwide have filed lawsuits of their own. Attorney General Bonta has filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Oregon v. Trump as well as in the D.C. Circuit in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, cases challenging President Trump’s illegal imposition of tariffs.

Attorney General Bonta has hosted roundtable discussions in San Francisco and Los Angeles for business leaders on the front lines of the tariff war to discuss the impacts of tariffs on industries across California. 

A copy of the brief is available here.