Federal Accountability

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday secured a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon permanently blocking the Trump Administration from penalizing states like California for errors resulting from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s erroneous guidance unlawfully restricting eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 

“There is no excuse for defending sloppiness, particularly sloppiness that would have ripped vital food assistance away from eligible families in need,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Yesterday, a court agreed, vacating the Trump Administration’s erroneous guidance and ensuring California is not penalized for the Administration’s mistakes. As Attorney General, I’ll always stand up for and stand with California families doing their best to make ends meet.” 

Last year, Attorney General Bonta and a multistate coalition sued the Trump Administration, arguing that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s October 31, 2025, guidance erroneously excluded certain lawfully residing non-citizens from SNAP eligibility, when they in fact are eligible when they become lawful permanent residents. Additionally, the Administration refused to provide the states the required 120-day grace period that follows the issuance of new guidance. On December 9 and 10, the Trump Administration issued further guidance clarifying that certain lawfully residing non-citizens are in fact eligible for SNAP when they become lawful permanent residents, but it continued to refuse to provide the required grace period. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday secured a final court order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts finding the Trump Administration’s termination of grant funding for K-12 teacher preparation programs unlawful. Beginning in February 2025, California institutions received letters purporting to terminate grants totaling at least $148 million in critical funding to address the state’s ongoing teacher shortage through teacher preparation programs. These programs are designed to create a pipeline for teachers serving rural and urban communities and teaching harder-to-fill positions like math and science and have been shown to increase teacher retention rates and ensure that educators remain in the profession beyond the crucial first five years. California led a multisite coalition in challenging the terminations, and yesterday, the court granted its motion for summary judgment, finding the Trump Administration's termination of these grants arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

“Since Day One, the Trump Administration has pursued an anti-education agenda, repeatedly attempting to slash funding to undermine teacher training, student mental health, classroom technology, and more. Once again, a court said no,” said Attorney General Bonta. “There is nothing more important that our students' educational future — and their success relies on ensuring we’re continuing to train up the teachers of tomorrow.” 

In 2024, more than 400,000 teaching positions in the U.S. — representing about one in eight of all teaching positions nationwide — were vacant or filled by uncertified teachers. When schools are unable to find qualified teachers, students suffer. Teacher shortages can result in larger class sizes, cancelled courses, or classes staffed with teachers less able to teach a subject.

To address the nationwide teacher shortage, especially for hard-to-fill subject areas, like math, science, and special education, and in hard-to-staff school districts in rural and urban areas, Congress established and allocated funding pursuant to the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development grant programs to train teachers, create a new teacher pipeline, and improve teacher quality. The U.S. Department of Education subsequently awarded and obligated funds to states’ public universities and associated nonprofits grants under these programs to do exactly what Congress mandated — provide teacher training, placement, and retention, and new teacher pipeline development in the states.

Beginning on February 7, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education terminated, with immediate effect, hundreds of millions in grants awarded to K-12 teacher preparation programs in California and nationwide. In California alone, the Department provided notice of termination of grants with a total value of at least $148 million in funding across a number of grants. These terminations have been felt across California schools, who rely on these programs to bring teachers into their classrooms. Yesterday’s court order blocks these harmful terminations on a moving forward basis.

Attorney General Bonta led this lawsuit with Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell and New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport. They were joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin in filing the lawsuit.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued the following statement after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted a coalition of states’ request for a preliminary injunction halting the Trump Administration’s attempt to obtain the sensitive personal information of drivers who have either a commercial driver’s license or commercial driver’s permit required to drive large, heavy, or hazardous commercial vehicles. In August, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition in suing the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) after it threatened to withhold funding to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) if it did not comply with demands for commercial driver data including drivers’ names, license numbers, licensing states, and more. A week later, the coalition's request for a temporary restraining order was granted. Now, the preliminary injunction bars FMCSA from unlawfully obtaining this data as the litigation continues.

“A federal court issued a preliminary injunction once again blocking the Trump Administration’s unlawful attempt to seize personal, sensitive data on commercial drivers,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This ruling ensures that Americans’ privacy rights remain protected as our case continues. California will continue to stand up for the rule of law and work to protect the privacy of Californians and commercial drivers across the country.”  

BACKGROUND

AAMVA operates a federally mandated system called the Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS). States use CDLIS to search for specific individuals applying for a commercial driver’s license, which is required to operate large, heavy, or hazardous commercial vehicles, such as semi-trucks, as opposed to a standard driver’s license that allows a driver to operate a passenger vehicle. CDLIS allows states, for example, to confirm that a person applying for a commercial driver’s license does not have such a license in another state. The federal government has historically used the information system to search for records on an individual basis, but FMCSA threatened to withhold funding for AAMVA and terminate the cooperative agreement under which CDLIS exists and operates, subject to demands for the records of millions of people in the system.

In August 2026, Attorney General Bonta and a multistate coalition challenged the demand for CDLIS data, arguing that it is unconstitutional, exceeds the Trump Administration’s authority, and violates the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act along with the federal Privacy Act. This new order blocks the broad demand for information while litigation continues.

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 21 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s thinly veiled attempt to drive large numbers of employees to resign by forcing them to move across the country. The brief supports a motion for a preliminary injunction in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Trump, et al., a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that USDA’s “reorganization” would not benefit the agency or the states. Instead, it would harm California and other states that partner with USDA on essential programs to prevent wildfires, protect food safety and security, and administer food assistance to our most vulnerable residents.

In the brief, the coalition urges the Northern District of California to protect states from this imminent harm by continuing to block the USDA’s wrongheaded and cruel reorganization plan. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition join the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Santa Clara, and many other labor organizations, counties, municipalities, nonprofits, and member organizations around the country challenging the proposed USDA reorganization. 

“The Trump Administration is trying to force essential public servants to choose between uprooting their lives — in many cases, by moving across the country — or losing their jobs,” said Attorney General Bonta. “If allowed to proceed, this reckless plan would make it harder for states to prevent wildfires, protect our food supply, and provide nutrition assistance to families who need it. The court has already blocked this plan, and we firmly believe it should stay blocked.” 

California and local governments across the state depend upon the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) for wildfire prevention, wildfire response, land-management partnerships, and scientific expertise. As Forest Service personnel are pushed out, the agency will have reduced capacity and lose specialized expertise, exposing California lands and communities to unnecessary harm. Since 2025, California alone has battled more than 13,000 wildfires that scorched over 800,000 acres of land, including heartbreaking disasters like the Palisades and Eaton Fires that devastated the Los Angeles area. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and municipal firefighting departments rely on their strong partnership with the Forest Service to protect California’s residents and communities from wildfire. The proposed USDA reorganization threatens Forest Service readiness, risking further harm to California residents who already are anxious about wildfire hazards.   

California also relies on USDA Food and Nutrition Administration (FNA) personnel for program administration, guidance, funding, oversight, and coordination. The reorganization threatens California’s ability to efficiently administer critical nutrition-assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), child and school-based nutrition programs, and nutrition-related disaster assistance. CalFresh and other California agencies depend on FNA staff to help provide these vital benefits to our most vulnerable residents. The USDA reorganization nearly ensures that experienced FNA staff will leave the agency, depriving all states of benefits assistance that FNA must provide.  

Similarly, California and other states rely on USDA research agencies for information and data concerning agriculture, food production, conservation, pests, plant and animal health, and food safety. The USDA plans to close the flagship Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) in Maryland, which has been the home of the Agricultural Research Service and is widely regarded as one of the most advanced and influential agricultural research centers in the world. Shuttering this lab would harm not just agriculture, but public health. Scientists at BARC are currently studying cyclospora, a foodborne parasite that can cause severe illness. The United States is currently in the midst of the worst cyclospora outbreak on record. Every scientist on at least one cyclospora project at BARC has declined to move across the country and will instead be forced to resign from USDA, leaving the future of this crucial research uncertain. 

The Trump Administration has repeatedly tried to dramatically slash protections and programs that states and people rely on, including food safety, environmental protection, natural disaster funding, and funding for victims of crime. In the case of USDA, over 75% of employees at some programs have stated they were more likely to leave the agency than uproot their lives and relocate, in many cases to new offices or facilities hundreds of miles away that are ill-equipped to support their core job functions. This reorganization would force large numbers of employees to choose between moving across the country despite family and personal obligations — and in many cases taking a significant pay cut — or quitting their jobs. The coalition’s brief highlights the harms to public health and safety that would follow and urges the court to protect these programs and employees.

This brief was led by the attorneys general of California, Maryland, and Washington. They were joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia.

Eligible voters urged to make their voices heard this November

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 24 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to leave in place a lower court order blocking the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from implementing sweeping changes to mail voting for the fast-approaching November midterm elections. The changes, which were mandated by President Trump’s second elections-related Executive Order, would have required state and local election officials to redesign and reprint ballot envelopes, enroll millions of voters in a new and untested USPS system, and meet burdensome requirements that would allow USPS to refuse to deliver mail ballots that do not comply. Last week, after first issuing a temporary restraining order, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the coalition’s request for a preliminary injunction, keeping the USPS changes blocked and preserving the existing mail voting process. The Trump Administration appealed, but the First Circuit rejected its request to pause the preliminary injunction. The Trump Administration also sought relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, which has now declined to intervene. 

“After losing in the district and appellate courts, the Trump Administration has now lost at the U.S. Supreme Court. Today’s decision is a victory for our democracy and a powerful affirmation of the rule of law,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The stakes in this litigation could not have been higher. Voting is the fundamental right from which all other rights flow, and all 50 states allow ballots to be cast by mail in some form. In California and several other states, mail voting is the primary way elections are conducted. Had this rule been allowed to take effect, the consequences would have been catastrophic. We will remain vigilant in safeguarding our elections, and we urge every eligible voter to make their voice heard.”

“Today is a good day for democracy, the rule of law, and the American people looking to exercise their Constitutional right to vote. California stood up for democracy and we won," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "Trump’s attacks on democracy these last 20 months have been nothing short of un-American. Finally, fifty days out, and the American people have certainty when it comes to our country’s electoral process: Voting is safe, vote-by-mail is accessible to any and all who need it. And I encourage every Californian to make their voice heard this November.”

"The ruling on mail-in ballots has been made. The uncertainty is behind us. Now, let the people vote! Voters will be able to cast their ballots without uncertainty, without hesitation, and without fear that their voices will be questioned or their ballots rejected," said Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D. "The ability to participate in an election is more than a procedure; it is a symbol of the very freedoms that make our democracy the bedrock of America and an example for the rest of the world. Now, we can finally move forward and get back to what we do best: conducting our elections without a dark cloud hanging over us — fairly, openly, for the people, by the people. No questions asked."

A recent whistleblower report warned of “potentially catastrophic problems” and characterized the Trump Administration’s efforts as “sloppy and rushed.” Further, in a recent court filing, USPS admitted that the technology to implement the rule is not even available. Additionally, election officials across the nation, including chief election officials from states that are not part of the coalition, such as Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah, argued that the USPS rule cannot be responsibly implemented for the November midterm elections. 

The coalition’s legal challenge to the USPS changes began on August 26, with the filing of a lawsuit co-led by Attorney General Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown. They were joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin, as well as the Governor of Pennsylvania.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Bonta, as part of a coalition of 25 states, filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Learning Resources v. Trump, a case challenging President Trump’s latest unlawful attempt to tax the states and American consumers through illegal tariffs. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta argues the latest round of tariffs levied under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 are pretextual and are not targeted to address the purported harms of forced labor, as that statute requires, but instead are designed to re-create the tariffs already declared illegal by various courts. Last month, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the Administration’s decision to impose these tariffs on over 80 countries that together account for 99.4% of all U.S. imports — costs that will be passed along to Americans already struggling with affordability.

“President Trump is so intent on raising the cost of living for Americans that he is willing to break law after law to continue his tariff regime,” said Attorney General Bonta. "Imposing these tariffs under Section 301 has nothing to do with forced labor and everything to do with continuing the President’s failed economic policy and reimposing the global tariffs that the Supreme Court invalidated. We urge the Court of International Trade to declare the President’s tariffs under Section 301 illegal. Tariffs are taxes, and the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the President’s illegal tariffs.” 

BACKGROUND

For more than a year, President Trump has inflicted chaos on the American economy by imposing tariffs without the legal authority to do so, including through illegal attempts using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — attempts that were struck down by multiple courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of International Trade. A recent analysis concluded that nearly 90% of the costs of tariffs in 2025 were paid by American consumers and businesses. By imposing another round of price increases on American consumers and businesses, the Trump Administration is tripling down on its failed economic policies.

ABOUT THE BRIEF

In the brief, the states highlight evidence exposing the Trump Administration’s stated rationale for the Section 301 tariffs — the forced-labor import practices of certain countries — as merely a pretext, manufactured to sidestep previous court decisions invalidating the Administration’s prior two attempts to unlawfully impose worldwide tariffs. Forced labor is a serious problem and using human rights issues as a tool for the Trump Administration's own destructive economic agenda is wrong. The coalition argues that because the tariffs are pretextual, they violate the Administrative Procedure Act. As evidence, the coalition points to:

The Administration’s own actions show a determination to institute global tariffs and to find any rationale to impose such tariffs when other avenues failed, including by using Section 301. For example, after the IEEPA tariffs were declared illegal, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) stated the Administration would take action “in short order to ensure continuity” including by imposing the Section 122 tariffs. Recognizing Section 122 tariffs were limited by statute to 150 days, the USTR also promised to initiate investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and to “conduct these investigations on an accelerated time frame.” Other Administration officials confirmed this plan: The same day the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the IEEPA tariffs, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declared that “[t]his Administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs,” including Section 301, “result[ing] in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.” The USTR affirmed that “[b]y the time the five-month period has elapsed, we’ll have completed [the] investigations under Section 301 that Secretary Bessent talked about,” and stated that “the specific authorities this administration is using have changed, but trade strategy has not . . . we are continuing to impose tariffs[.]”

The USTR fast-tracked an investigation into 60 economies at once, without regard to their record on forced labor, in order to re-impose its former tariff regime. The investigation required to impose Section 301 tariffs targeted 60 economies at once, instead of investigating by individual country, and occurred in a very abbreviated 2.5-month timeframe, as opposed to the 12 months or more typical of these inquiries. And USTR’s actual findings under Section 301 do not specify how any country’s forced-labor import practices burden U.S. commerce or explain how global tariffs will eliminate those practices. Further, the USTR identifies no mechanism by which any economy can secure release from the tariffs in exchange for reforms. There are no standards or benchmarks to measure the effectiveness of a country’s new restrictions or improved enforcement. There is no adjustment process, no sunset date, and no plan to revisit these tariffs.

The tariffs’ rate and exemptions track the previous, unlawful tariff regime and were timed to take effect at the exact minute that the prior tariffs expired. The Section 301 tariff rates of 10% and 12.5% largely track the former IEEPA and Section 122 tariffs, which both imposed a baseline 10% tariff on most goods. The Section 301 tariffs also exempt similar goods as the Section 122 tariffs, even when doing so undermines their supposed goal. For example, the Administration’s report on its investigation identified just three products made with forced labor to justify tariffs on dozens of countries. Yet one of these, frozen beef from Brazil, is exempted from the tariffs.

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joined the attorneys general of Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the Governors of Pennsylvania and Kentucky.

Dramatic expansion of who is considered a “public charge” would force millions to choose between protecting their pathway to citizenship and access to healthcare or food assistance for themselves and their families 

SAN FRANCISCO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, co-leading a multistate coalition, sued to block the Trump Administration’s new rule dramatically expanding the ability of immigration officials to use participation in public benefits programs as grounds to deny lawful permanent residency. Historically, the public charge ground of inadmissibility has been a narrow provision that excluded only those immigrants who were expected to become primarily dependent on federal programs for their subsistence. In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the Trump Administration’s rewrite of more than a century of settled immigration law exceeds its statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and should be vacated.

“No family should have to choose between accessing healthcare and nutrition assistance today — or protecting their pathway to a green card tomorrow,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration is seeking to rewrite more than 100 years of law with its expansive new definition of who is considered a ‘public charge.’ In doing so, it is providing individual immigration officers with the discretion and power to punish families for lawfully accessing certain public benefits programs during short-term periods of need. This Administration’s cruelty continues to know no bounds. We’re going to court on behalf of the millions of immigrants who call this state home — and we will fight to get this unlawful rule undone.” 

For more than 140 years, the term “public charge” has been understood by states, Congress, courts, and federal agencies to mean an individual who has become, or is likely to become, primarily dependent on the government for long-term subsistence. Under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a noncitizen who is likely to become a public charge is generally inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to become a lawful permanent resident. 

In 2019, the Trump Administration sought to radically expand this definition to include the use of healthcare through federally-funded Medicaid, nutrition and food support through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Section 8 housing assistance. That rule was successfully challenged by California and other states and later reversed by the Biden Administration and restored to its original meaning. Now, the Trump Administration is trying again, reversing Biden-Era corrective guidance and eviscerating existing regulations that place guardrails on immigration officers' discretion in making public charge determinations. 

Under the new final rule, immigration officers will have unprecedented, sweeping new discretion to deny admission, and to block pathways to lawful permanent residency, based on participation in public programs — programs that Congress or the states expressly chose to allow noncitizens or their U.S.-citizen family members to participate in. These officers will now be able to rely on any public benefits use for any period of time — and, really, any information at all — in making a public charge inadmissibility determination. For example, immigration agents are now empowered to count U.S. citizen household members’ lawful use of individual benefits, such as a U.S. citizen child’s use of state-provided health insurance, against a noncitizen parent who has been following all the rules.

In a lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the final rule and its implementing guidance exceed the Trump Administration’s statutory authority and are arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the APA. The final rule is inconsistent with the settled meaning — or any other reasonable interpretation — of the INA’s public charge provision. The Trump Administration also failed to engage in the reasoned decision-making process required by the APA, brushing aside the harmful consequences of the regime it sets forth, while relying on legally erroneous justifications. As a result, without court intervention, families across California will be forced to forgo their legal access to essential benefits such as preventive healthcare and nutritional assistance, and in turn, public health, local economies, public education, and public safety will suffer.  

Attorney General Bonta is committed to protecting and defending the rights of California's immigrant communities. He previously issued guidance to help California immigrants better understand their rights and protections under the law and avoid immigration scams. You can find more on the California Department of Justice’s work to protect California immigrants at oag.ca.gov/immigrant.

In filing today's lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul lead the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the governor of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit was filed alongside a coalition of cities and counties, including the City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the County of Santa Clara late yesterday secured a preliminary injunction blocking the illegal construction of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County near Gilroy, California. In June 2026, Attorney General Bonta and the County of Santa Clara filed a lawsuit challenging the construction of this facility, which the federal government pursued without required environmental review or consultation with state and local governments. ICE subsequently agreed to pause construction until September 9, 2026. Yesterday’s order by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California continues to halt construction and asks the parties to meet and confer and submit a proposed order by September 30, 2026 on the scope of the injunction.

"No one is above the law — not even the federal government," said Attorney General Rob Bonta. "The Trump Administration tried to rush construction of this facility in secret, ignoring environmental safeguards and shutting out the communities that would bear the consequences. This ruling sends a clear message: California will hold the federal government accountable and protect our communities, our environment, and the rule of law.”

“We’re hopeful the court’s ruling sends a clear message that this is the wrong process and the wrong place for this facility,” said County Counsel Tony LoPresti.  “The federal government’s legal violations concealed fundamental flaws with this project — you can’t plop a facility like this onto sensitive land that lacks basic infrastructure to support the detention of individuals.  We’re proud to stand with Attorney General Bonta in fighting this battle, and we’re honored to support an immigrant community that has been under constant assault by an Administration that is all too willing to proceed without regard for the law.”

BACKGROUND 

In January 2025, the federal government leased a 24.5-acre parcel of unincorporated land near Gilroy, California from a private developer for use by ICE as a likely Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) holding facility. From there, the federal government moved to build out the site rapidly and without transparency — bypassing required environmental review and failing to consult with state or local governments at any point. The construction of the facility threatens to cause the release of hazardous materials and disrupt the ecosystem, habitat, and agricultural value of land that the county and the state have protected for exclusively agricultural uses since the 1960s. The project is also likely to have severe impacts on vital infrastructure, overwhelming a septic system designed for much smaller use.  

Attorney General Bonta and the County of Santa Clara filed a lawsuit and a motion for a preliminary injunction in June 2026, arguing that the development of this facility violates the National Environmental Policy Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and California’s Williamson Act. Yesterday’s decision on the motion for a preliminary injunction finds Attorney General Bonta and the County of Santa Clara are likely to succeed in the litigation and halts construction of the facility pending further instruction by the court. 

Settlement ensures funding will flow without interruption for FY26-27 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, co-leading a coalition of 23 attorneys general and two governors, announced a settlement that stops the Trump Administration from again attempting to dismantle AmeriCorps without warning. AmeriCorps is an independent federal agency tasked with engaging Americans in meaningful community-based service that directly addresses the country’s educational, public safety, and environmental needs. Organizations rely on support from AmeriCorps to recruit, place, and supervise AmeriCorps members nationwide. The settlement resolves a multistate lawsuit brought in response to the Trump Administration’s repeated attempts to gut AmeriCorps. Previously, as a result of the lawsuit, the Trump Administration was forced to reinstate nearly $400 million in terminated AmeriCorps programs and agreed to release over $184 million in funds to service programs in California and across the country. This settlement ensures these protections continue through Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-2027.  

“AmeriCorps volunteers represent the best of who we are as a country,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today’s settlement ensures AmeriCorps volunteers and the communities they serve have certainty that these vital volunteer programs will continue without disruption in the upcoming service year, extending the relief we previously secured in court. I’m proud to have worked with states across the nation in protecting this vital service program.”  

As part of the settlement, the Trump Administration commits to obligate all FY 2026-2027 congressionally allocated AmeriCorps funds by September 30, 2026. The Trump Administration further stipulates that AmeriCorps has no intention of engaging in mass layoffs or program terminations for FY 2026-2027, and is required to notify the coalition with at least 30 days’ notice if it intends to undertake any mass terminations of AmeriCorps staff or volunteer programs to give the coalition the opportunity to challenge any such actions. 

The settlement pauses the litigation through February 1, 2027, at which point the coalition will voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice, provided AmeriCorps has complied with its commitments. Should the coalition determine that AmeriCorps has not complied, it may move the court to lift the stay and resume litigation. The coalition also retains the right to challenge other unlawful conduct by AmeriCorps, whether through an amended complaint during the stay or a new action during or after the stay. 

Attorney General Bonta and the coalition filed its lawsuit in April 2025, after the Trump Administration moved to eliminate nearly 90% of AmeriCorps’ workforce, cancel its contracts, and close $400 million worth of AmeriCorps-supported programs. In June 2025, a federal court granted the coalition’s motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the administration to reinstate programs that had been unlawfully canceled. Then in August 2025, following a further motion for a preliminary injunction by the coalition, the federal Office of Management and Budget agreed to release more than $184 million in AmeriCorps funding it had withheld.

Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Maryland, Colorado, Delaware, Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, in filing the settlement. 

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 24 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured another victory for voters after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the Trump Administration’s request to stay, or pause, a recent federal court order blocking drastic, unprecedented, and unlawful changes to mail voting adopted by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). The changes, which were mandated by President Trump’s second elections-related Executive Order, would require state and local election officials to redesign and reprint ballot envelopes, enroll millions of voters in a new and untested USPS system, and meet burdensome requirements that would allow USPS to refuse to deliver mail ballots that do not comply. Last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the coalition’s request for a preliminary injunction, after previously granting a temporary restraining order. The preliminary injunction blocks the USPS changes through the fast-approaching November midterm elections. The Trump Administration appealed the decision and asked the First Circuit to let the changes take effect. Today, the First Circuit denied that request.

“The First Circuit has once again rejected the Trump Administration’s latest attempt to disrupt mail voting,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The changes at issue could disenfranchise millions of voters, especially given how little time there is to implement them. As a reminder, President Trump has repeatedly voted by mail himself — he doesn’t get to decide that mail voting is good enough for him, but not for other Americans.”

“The rule of law continues to slap down Trump’s dangerous and un-American attacks on our democracy,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “California will never stop fighting for democracy and people’s ability to exercise their constitutional right to vote.” 

“This decision was the right one. Attacks on mail voting have the potential to disenfranchise millions of eligible voters, violate citizens’ constitutional right to vote, and undercut our democracy,” said Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D. “California and its leaders will continue to protect voters' rights and their ability to participate in free and fair elections.”

The First Circuit’s decision comes as serious concerns grow about USPS’s ability to implement the changes on a short timeline. A recent whistleblower report warned of “potentially catastrophic problems” and characterized the Trump Administration’s efforts as “sloppy and rushed.” In response, the coalition filed the whistleblower report with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and cited it in its opposition brief to the government’s request to stay the case before the First Circuit. In a recent court filing, USPS also admitted that the technology to implement the rule is not even available. In addition, election officials across the nation, including chief election officials from states that are not part of the coalition, such as Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah, have argued that the USPS rule cannot be responsibly implemented for the November midterm elections.

The coalition’s legal challenge to the USPS changes began on August 26, with the filing of a lawsuit co-led by Attorney General Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown. They were joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin, as well as the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.