Federal Accountability

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today celebrated a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granting a temporary restraining order blocking U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from engaging in unconstitutional and unlawful stops of Los Angeles residents during immigration sweeps. 

“The Trump Administration is using federal immigration agents as a tool to instill fear and division in Los Angeles communities. In doing so, it is damaging community trust with law enforcement, disrupting Angelenos’ daily lives, and impeding public safety,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The troubling use of masks, unmarked vehicles, and plainclothes to cover up immigration agents’ identities – and their own refusal to identify themselves when asked – has made it difficult to distinguish these agents from criminals. Their sweeping stops of Angelenos, based not on any evidence of wrongdoing but instead on racial profiling, is flagrantly unconstitutional. Los Angeles cannot be expected to live like this, with many residents afraid to leave their homes and their civil rights under fire. Today, a court agreed, ordering immigration agents to end their unconstitutional stops in the Los Angeles area. As California Attorney General, I will continue to fight to hold this President and his administration accountable to the law and to protect and defend California communities and their civil rights.”

Attorney General Bonta led a multistate coalition in filing an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in Vasquez Perdomo et al. v Noem et al. last week. Attorney General Bonta has also sued the Trump Administration over the President’s illegal order to federalize the California National Guard and redirect hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles. 

A copy of the court’s decision is available here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a multistate coalition in submitting an amicus brief in Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Bondi, supporting plaintiffs challenging conditions placed on Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grants by the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ). In their brief, the attorneys general argue that the federal government is illegally adding new rules to domestic violence and sexual assault grants that go against the Constitution and threaten vital services for victims.

“Violence Against Women Act grants provide a critical safety net for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault across California,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration’s politically driven restrictions on accessing these grants are not only unlawful, but they also put lives at risk. Survivors deserve support free from discrimination and interference, not confusing mandates that jeopardize their access to help when they need it most.” 

VAWA grants help provide safe shelters, counseling, legal aid, and other critical support, aiming to serve all eligible victims, regardless of their background. However, U.S. DOJ is now attempting to add confusing new rules to these grants, telling organizations they cannot use funds to "promote gender identity" or "DEI programs," even while maintaining that organizations must continue to serve all victims and follow anti-discrimination laws. This puts the groups that help victims and survivors in an impossible bind and potentially leaves countless victims without the help they desperately need.

The plaintiffs, a coalition of domestic violence and sexual assault service providers, argue that these conditions exceed U.S. DOJ’s statutory authority, are arbitrary and capricious, and violate constitutional rights, including the First and Fifth Amendments and the Spending Clause.

In today’s amicus brief, the attorneys general support the plaintiffs, arguing that preliminary injunctive relief reinstating this funding while litigation continues is in the public interest because:

• Enforcing conditions on VAWA-funded services for California residents would cause severe harm, particularly in addressing domestic violence and sexual assault.
• VAWA funds are vital for training law enforcement, improving victim services for underserved populations, and assisting victims with immigration matters. 

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

A copy of the amicus brief, which is subject to court approval, can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday, as part of a multistate coalition, filed a motion for preliminary injunction to block the U.S. Department of Education from unlawfully discontinuing grants awarded through Congressionally-established school mental health funding programs, including roughly $200 million awarded to local education agencies, county offices of education, and universities in California. The motion for preliminary injunction seeks to block the Trump Administration from implementing their non-continuation decision, and ensure grant funding continues to flow to grantees who received discontinuation letters irrespective of the performance and success of their projects.

“The Trump Administration’s Department of Education should be focused on supporting the success and education of our students, but instead they are using flimsy and unlawful excuses to rip funding from projects that support the mental health and well-being of our students,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The loss of this funding would cause immense harm to California students, especially in our low-income and rural communities. That’s why we are back in court, fighting to ensure that our students have access to mental health programs that work. We’re asking the court to block the Trump Administration’s illegal actions while litigation continues.” 

BACKGROUND: 

On June 30, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 16 states in suing the Trump Administration’s Department of Education over their unlawful decision to discontinue grants awarded through Congressionally-established school mental health funding programs. If allowed to stand, starting this fall, many states’ elementary and secondary schools will lose mental health services critical to students’ well-being, safety, and academic success. The Department had awarded this funding to the nation’s high-need, low-income, and rural schools pursuant to its Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program and its School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to safeguard this critical funding, which fosters safe and supportive learning environments, and supports the well-being of our students. 

Despite the success of these mental health programs, on or about April 29, 2025, the Department sent boilerplate notices to grantees, including state education agencies, local education agencies, and institutes of higher education, claiming that their grants conflicted with the Trump Administration’s priorities and would not be continued. The notices claimed the Department intends to reallocate funds based on new priorities of “merit, fairness, and excellence in education,” providing little to no insight into the basis for the discontinuance, while destroying projects years in the making. However, in the press, the Trump Administration admitted that it targeted Plaintiff States’ grants for their perceived diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, which the States argue is not a legal basis for discontinuation. In the lawsuit, the attorneys general argue that the Trump Administration’s decision to discontinue funding through a vague boilerplate notice, without any mention of grantees’ performance, violates the Administrative Procedure Act and is an unconstitutional violation of the Spending Clause and Separation of Powers. 

A copy of the motion for preliminary injunction is available here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday joined a lawsuit led by the attorneys general of New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland, suing the Trump Administration’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), over its official plans to return thousands of forced reset triggers (FRTs) into communities across the United States. A semi-automatic firearm equipped with an FRT allows a shooter to engage in sustained rapid fire, similar to a fully automatic machine gun, so long as the trigger is held down. Thus, a firearm equipped with an FRT can unleash massive carnage in mere seconds. Although ATF previously classified FRTs as illegal machine guns, the Trump Administration’s ATF signed a settlement agreement reverting that classification and agreed to return thousands of seized FRTs into communities across the United States. Following the Trump Administration’s settlement, Attorney General Bonta issued a law enforcement bulletin, reminding law enforcement that the Trump Administration’s settlement does not alter the fact that FRTs remain illegal under California law. In an amended complaint filed yesterday, California joined the coalition of 16 other attorneys general in this litigation to prevent the imminent redistribution of FRTs that are illegal to possess under federal law.

“It is a devastating fact that in our nation, children and teens are more likely to die by gun violence than any illness or accident. In California, we know that commonsense gun laws save lives, and we won’t stand idly by as the Trump Administration pours illegal weapons into our communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Forced reset triggers turn firearms into deadlier machine guns, and they are illegal in California. We’re joining this lawsuit to prevent FRTs from entering California and to challenge the unlawful settlement agreement entered by the Trump Administration with manufacturers of FRTs.”

Despite the federal prohibition, ATF estimates that at least 100,000 FRTs have been distributed across the country in recent years. FRTs have become increasingly popular, including among individuals who are prohibited from possessing any firearms under federal law. ATF’s records also establish that machine gun conversion devices, including FRTs, are showing up more often at crime scenes. 

Multiple lawsuits seeking either to enforce or challenge the prohibition on FRTs were filed during the Biden Administration. A federal judge in New York agreed that FRTs are banned under federal law. A federal judge in Texas disagreed and held that FRTs do not qualify as machine guns under federal law, but that ruling was on appeal when the Trump Administration announced that it had settled these lawsuits — in a way that eviscerates the federal FRT prohibition. ATF has agreed to abandon its enforcement actions and appeals; promised to stop enforcing the federal ban on machine guns against FRTs, even against individuals and sellers who were not parties to any of these lawsuits; and pledged to return FRTs that it previously seized.

This multistate lawsuit seeks to prevent the return of FRTs, arguing that they are prohibited by federal law, which prohibits anyone from owning machine guns, including devices that convert semi-automatic firearms into machine guns. The federal government cannot violate federal law, even when it tries to bury those violations in a settlement agreement. The lawsuit also argues that the return of FRTs will permanently threaten public safety nationwide. And, as the lawsuit highlights, ATF has even admitted that returning FRTs in states that prohibit them would “aid and abet” violations of state laws. In California, FRTs are “multiburst trigger activators” under Penal Code section 16930, and under Penal Code section 32900, an FRT cannot be owned, sold, offered for sale, manufactured, imported, given away, or lent. An influx of FRTs into California communities would harm public safety and increase costs to the State.

Attorney General Bonta yesterday, through the amended complaint, joins the attorneys general of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Colorado, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia in the lawsuit.

A copy of the amended complaint is available here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a multistate coalition in submitting an amicus brief in Vasquez Perdomo et al. v Noem et al., supporting plaintiffs seeking a temporary restraining order to enjoin the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from engaging in unconstitutional and unlawful stops of Los Angeles residents during immigration sweeps. The lawsuit comes amid the Trump Administration conducting aggressive, militaristic immigration raids in Los Angeles that have terrified immigrant and non-immigrant residents alike, chilled community members’ participation in civic society, and impeded law enforcement and public safety. 

“The actions of ICE and CBP during the raids in Los Angeles are part of a cruel and familiar pattern of attacks on our immigrant communities by an administration that thrives on fear and division,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Let me be crystal clear: These raids are not about safety or justice. They are about meeting enforcement quotas and striking fear in our communities. We won’t be silent. We won’t back down. We will continue to hold the federal government accountable when it violates the Constitution and federal law.” 

“The Fourth Amendment protects every person from unreasonable searches and seizures," said Governor Gavin Newsom. “Instead of targeting dangerous criminals, federal agents are detaining U.S. citizens, ripping families apart, and vanishing people to meet indiscriminate arrest quotas without regard to due process and constitutional rights that protect all of us from cruelty and injustice. Their actions imperil the fabric of our democracy, society, and economy. This isn't law and order — it’s cruelty and chaos. We stand solidly in support of progress, of the law, and the foundation upon which our founding fathers built this great nation.”

During his presidential campaign, President Donald Trump promised an aggressive and militarized crackdown on undocumented immigration, praising a 1954 enforcement initiative under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, offensively named “Operation Wetback,” that involved the mass arrest and deportation of 300,000 people, including U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, history is repeating itself. Masked immigration agents are conducting unannounced enforcement actions throughout California communities and, in all too many instances, stopping residents without so much as a reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct, leaving people afraid to leave their homes. The dragnet has resulted in U.S. citizens being wrongfully detained and has created a culture of fear and COVID-style ghost towns.

In their motion for a temporary restraining order, plaintiffs allege that ICE and CBP have a policy and practice of engaging in unconstitutional stops that are not based on a reasonable, individualized suspicion of unlawful presence, but are instead based on racial profiling.

In today’s amicus brief, the attorneys general support the plaintiffs, arguing that preliminary injunctive relief is in the public interest because: 

• CBP and ICE engaging in unlawful stops of Californians without a reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity has harmed local economies, public health, and several other core facets of daily life.
• Federal law enforcement’s tactics in conducting these stops, which include wearing masks and concealing the law enforcement entity they work for, have impeded local law enforcement and threatened public safety. 

This amicus brief comes after Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration challenging the President’s order to federalize the California National Guard and redirect hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles. 

In submitting the brief, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

A copy of the amicus brief, which is subject to court approval, can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a multistate coalition of 13 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in Jane Doe, et al. v. Pamela Bondi, et al., in support of a challenge to the Trump Administration’s executive order targeting protections under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and access to healthcare for transgender individuals in federal prisons. In their brief, the attorneys general urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to affirm the district court’s decision granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.  

“The Trump Administration’s attempt to strip away protections under PREA not only undermines the progress we’ve made to safeguard the rights and wellbeing of individuals in our correctional facilities but also increases the risk of harm for vulnerable individuals,” said Attorney General Bonta. “These protections are crucial to preventing sexual assault and ensuring that we foster safer environments for incarcerated individuals and our staff in these correctional facilities.”

In 2003, Congress enacted PREA to ensure that all incarcerated individuals, including those who are transgender, are better protected in correctional facilities. Protections implemented under PREA reduce the risk of sexual assault, promote the safety and security of prisons housing transgender incarcerated individuals, improve the safety of those transgender incarcerated individuals, and further the goal of effective prison administration. In January 2025, President Trump issued the Gender Ideology EO which (1) prohibits transgender individuals from being detained based on their gender identity in prisons or detention centers, (2) prohibits the Bureau of Prisons from recognizing transgender identity, and (3) ends federal fund use for gender affirming care in prisons.

In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to affirm the district court’s preliminary injunction arguing that:

• PREA protections are essential to the safety and well-being of all incarcerated individuals and protect all incarcerated individuals, especially transgender individuals, from sexual assault.
• The Bureau of Prisons blanket policy undermines public safety as it prevents discretion in housing determinations making it more difficult to effectuate PREA’s purpose of eliminating sexual assault in prisons.
• Amici States’ experiences demonstrate that case-by-case housing assessments consistent with PREA are effective at ensuring the safety of all those who are incarcerated, including incarcerated individuals who are transgender. 

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys generals of Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the brief can be found here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined an amicus brief, alongside 21 attorneys general, in support of a proposed class of plaintiffs challenging the unlawful termination of Job Corps in Cabrera et al. v. Department of Labor et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Job Corps is a national program that offers career training and housing to young Americans from low-income backgrounds. Unlawful termination of the program would impact tens of thousands of young Americans who are currently enrolled and housed at campuses in all fifty states. Last week, in a similar case where California also joined an amicus brief, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.  The preliminary injunction in the New York case enjoins the administration from closing the Job Corps centers and from taking any action to end the Job Corps program absent congressional authorization. In today’s amicus brief, the attorneys general urge the Court to issue a preliminary injunction in Cabrera as well. 

“Gutting Job Corps strips our youth, especially those from underserved communities, of one of the few accessible pathways to stable careers, education, and economic mobility,” said Attorney General Bonta. “An injunction is essential to protect this critical program and uphold the rule of law.”

Job Corps has nearly 100 residential campuses across the country, and the Trump Administration’s effort to illegally terminate the program threatens to leave thousands of vulnerable young Americans homeless. The brief explains that “in the sixty years since Congress created Job Corps, millions of young Americans from low-income backgrounds have been served by the program’s unique combination of education, training, housing, healthcare and community.”  

Today’s amicus filing reaffirms that an injunction is necessary to protect vulnerable state residents and promote state goals in education and workforce development. It further reinforces the point that the Trump Administration cannot violate federal law and the Constitution by terminating congressionally mandated programs it opposes.

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

A copy of the amicus brief is available here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement after the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted a preliminary injunction in California’s lawsuit challenging the unlawful mass firing of employees and dismantling of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The decision immediately blocks the Trump Administration from implementing or enforcing its planned Reductions in Force or sub-agency restructuring with respect to: (1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (2) the Center for Tobacco Products, (3) the Office of Head Start and Head Start employees in the Regional Offices, and (4) the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, while litigation in this case continues. 

“The work of HHS is absolutely critical to the safety and health of millions of Americans. We are pleased the court temporarily halted the Trump Administration’s unlawful dismantling of the agency so that HHS can continue its important work,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration is not only acting against the best interest of Americans nationwide, but is once again acting beyond its power — the President does not have the power to incapacitate a department that Congress created, nor can it decline to spend funds that were appropriated by Congress for that department. We look forward to continuing to make our case in court.”

BACKGROUND 

On March 27, 2025, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy announced his planned cuts to the department under the “Make America Healthy Again” directive. Shortly after the announcement, programs funded through HHS ceased their operations and fired their staff, cutting off access to vital resources and expertise needed to combat infectious diseases, reduce smoking-related deaths, and ensure families have access to early childhood programs. On May 5, 2025, Attorney General Bonta  joined a coalition of 20 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit challenging the unlawful firing of workers and dismantling of HHS. On May 9, 2025 the coalition filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which was granted today.  

A copy of the decision is available here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, leading a multistate coalition, filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) decision to provide unfettered access to individual personal health data to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which houses Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In the seven decades since Congress enacted the Medicaid Act to provide medical assistance to vulnerable populations, federal law, policy, and practice has been clear: the personal healthcare data collected about beneficiaries of the program is confidential, to be shared only in certain narrow circumstances that benefit public health and the integrity of the Medicaid program itself. In today’s lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the mass transfer of this data violates the law and ask the court to block any new transfer or use of this data for immigration enforcement purposes. 

“The Trump Administration has upended longstanding privacy protections with its decision to illegally share sensitive, personal health data with ICE. In doing so, it has created a culture of fear that will lead to fewer people seeking vital emergency medical care,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I’m sickened by this latest salvo in the President’s anti-immigrant campaign. We’re headed to court to prevent any further sharing of Medicaid data — and to ensure any of the data that’s already been shared is not used for immigration enforcement purposes.”

Created in 1965, Medicaid is an essential source of health insurance for lower-income individuals and particular underserved population groups, including children, pregnant women, individuals with disabilities, and seniors. The Medicaid program allows each participating state to develop and administer its own unique health plans; states must meet threshold federal statutory criteria, but they can tailor their plans’ eligibility standards and coverage options to residents’ needs. As of January 2025, 78.4 million people were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) nationwide.  

California’s Medi-Cal program provides healthcare coverage for one out of every three Californians, including more than two million noncitizens. Noncitizens include green card holders, refugees, individuals who hold temporary protected status, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival recipients, and others. Not all noncitizens are eligible for federally funded Medi-Cal services, and so California uses state-only funds to provide a version of the Medi-Cal program to all eligible state residents, regardless of their immigration status. 

A certain amount of personal data is routinely exchanged between the states and the federal government for purposes of administering Medicaid, including verifying eligibility for federal funding. Historically, DHS has acknowledged that the Medicaid Act and other federal healthcare authorities foreclose the use of Medicaid personal information for immigration enforcement purposes. Yet now, the federal government appears to have — without formal acknowledgment — adopted a new policy that allows for the wholesale disclosure and use of state residents’ personal Medicaid data for purposes unrelated to Medicaid program administration. On June 13, 2025, California and other states learned through news reports that HHS has transferred en masse their state’s Medicaid data files, containing personal health records representing millions of individuals, to DHS. Reports indicate that the federal government plans to create a sweeping database for “mass deportations” and other large-scale immigration enforcement purposes.

The federal government claims it gave this data to DHS “to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them.” But it is Congress that extended coverage and federal funds for emergency Medicaid to all individuals residing in the United States, regardless of immigration status. The states have and will continue to cooperate with federal oversight activities to ensure that the federal government pays only for those Medicaid services that are legally authorized.  

In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition highlight that the Trump Administration’s illegal actions are creating fear and confusion that will lead noncitizens and their family members to disenroll, or refuse to enroll, in emergency Medicaid for which they are otherwise eligible, leaving states and their safety net hospitals to foot the bill for federally mandated emergency healthcare services.  They may not get the emergency health services they need and will suffer negative health consequences — and even death — as a result. The coalition asks that the court find the Trump Administration’s actions arbitrary and capricious and rulemaking without proper procedure in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, contrary to the Social Security Act, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Federal Information Security Modernization Act, and Privacy Act, and in violation of the Spending Clause. They ask the court to enjoin HHS from transferring personally identifiable Medicaid data to DHS or any other federal agency and DHS from using this data to conduct immigration enforcement.  

Attorney General Bonta leads the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washinton in filing the lawsuit. 

A copy of the complaint is available here.

$200 million of funding intended to support the mental health and well-being of California students is at risk

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced joining a coalition of 16 states, in suing the Trump Administration’s Department of Education over their unlawful decision to discontinue grants awarded through Congressionally-established school mental health funding programs, including roughly $200 million awarded to local education agencies, county offices of education, and universities in California. If allowed to stand, starting this fall, many States’ elementary and secondary schools will lose mental health services critical to students’ well-being, safety, and academic success. The Department had awarded this funding to the nation’s high-need, low-income, and rural schools pursuant to its Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program (MHSP) and its School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program (SBMH). The lawsuit, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to safeguard this critical funding, which fosters safe and supportive learning environments, and supports the well-being of our students. 

“The Trump Administration’s Department of Education is attempting to rip away funding and projects that support the mental health and well-being of our students – it’s not only immoral, it’s unlawful,” said Attorney General Bonta. “These mental health programs were established by Congress following a wave of tragic and unacceptable school shootings, and they do critical work to ensure students can not only succeed but thrive. The loss of this funding would cause immense harm to California students, especially in our low-income and rural communities. The California Department of Justice will not stand idly by – we’re once again taking the Trump Administration to court, this time to protect the mental health and well-being of our students.” 

Spurred by episodes of devastating loss from school shootings, Congress established and funded MHSP in 2018 and SBMH in 2020 to increase students’ access to mental health services. 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; and 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.

In California, 44 local education agencies, county offices of education, and universities are set to lose roughly $200 million. 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.

Despite these successes, on or about April 29, 2025, the Department sent boilerplate notices to grantees, including state education agencies, local education agencies, and institutes of higher education, claiming that their grants conflicted with the Trump Administration’s priorities and would not be continued. The notices claimed the Department intends to reallocate funds based on new priorities of “merit, fairness, and excellence in education,” providing little to no insight into the basis for the discontinuance, while destroying projects years in the making. However, in the press, the Trump Administration admitted that it targeted Plaintiff States’ grants for their perceived diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, which the States argue is not a legal basis for discontinuation. 

In the lawsuit, the attorneys general argue that the Trump Administration’s decision to discontinue funding through a vague boilerplate notice, without any mention of grantees’ performance, violates the Administrative Procedure Act and is an unconstitutional violation of the Spending Clause and Separation of Powers. If allowed to stand, the Trump Administration’s unlawful decision to discontinue this funding would cause irreparable harm to States that would be forced to lay off school-based mental health service providers, cutting off much-needed mental health services to their rural and low-income schools. Furthermore, it will harm States’ students who have already benefitted from these Programs, making it more challenging for schools to provide services to students who feel abandoned and distrust mental health resources due to the interruption in services caused by the discontinuation.

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

A copy of the lawsuit is available here.