Civil Rights

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led a coalition of 20 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) proposed rule that would revoke tax-exempt status for thousands of private schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion-related policies and programs. The proposed rule would allow the IRS to deny or revoke the tax exemption of certain K-12 schools, colleges, universities, or professional schools with policies that the Trump Administration deems inconsistent with its executive orders and political aims. Doing so threatens educational outcomes, scholarships, loans, athletics, and donors’ protected speech. In the letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that this proposed rule undermines civil rights law and core equal protection principles.

“With this proposed rule, the Trump Administration is punishing private schools for promoting equal opportunity and programs that ensure all students can grow and achieve their dreams without roadblocks. Not only is this unconstitutional, but it also harms thousands of schools’ philanthropic work that helps students succeed," said Attorney General Bonta. “Once again, President Trump is using unlawful excuses to play political games with America’s promise of a good education. Learning and liberty go hand in hand, which is why my fellow attorneys general and I will continue to stand up against Trump’s anti-American orders.”  

BACKGROUND

Across the country, private K-12 schools, universities, and other educational organizations receive the benefits of federal tax-exempt status with the IRS for operating exclusively for charitable or educational purposes. This status allows private schools to attract tax-deductible donations, grants, and other benefits that ultimately allow educational institutions to fund programs, scholarships, and boost educational outcomes for Americans. Currently, the IRS’s Revenue Procedure allows private schools to have a policy that promotes the establishment and maintenance of a school’s racially nondiscriminatory policy with respect to admissions, facilities and programs, and financial assistance. Nevertheless, according to the Trump Administration’s own estimate, the proposed regulations may change this for thousands of private schools by reshaping higher education to conform with the administration’s orders and political agenda.  

This proposed rule represents another attack in a long list of attempts to dismantle race-based and equity-centered policies. This change, if finalized, would continue that trend of furthering political and cultural aims, regardless of the illegality of the proposal. The proposed rule acknowledges that private schools may incur some legal and administrative costs but fails to acknowledge the breadth and depth of the costs and other burdens. The change would also place restrictions on donors’ protected speech with an arbitrary and capricious rule that modifies donor intent. 

In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition explain that the IRS’s proposed rule is in violation of the law because:

• It subverts civil rights law and equal protection principles;
• It would place severe burdens on the impacted private schools, states’ attorneys general, the courts, and donors to modify charitable gifts; and
• It violates the federal Administrative Procedure Act and case law on the issuance of federal administrative regulations under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) 603 U.S. 369.  

In submitting the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, and New York Attorney General Letitia James co-lead the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement after the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the Trump Administration’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) that would have required California election officials to segregate and not count mail-in ballots returned by approximately 20,000 individuals the administration “believes” are “likely” noncitizens, but has also admitted could include several U.S. citizens. Attorney General Bonta filed a brief opposing the TRO, a supplemental brief further opposing the TRO, and a motion to dismiss the federal government’s lawsuit. Today’s district court victory builds on Monday’s win at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which rejected the administration’s attempt to obtain emergency relief by bypassing the district court.

“No administration can disenfranchise thousands of individuals or disrupt an ongoing election based on highly unreliable claims of noncitizenship,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Today’s ruling is yet another important victory for the rule of law and the right to vote. But this fight is not over. We will keep fighting to protect California’s elections from unlawful federal interference and get this baseless lawsuit dismissed.”

“For the second day this week, our country’s legal system is standing up to the President’s authoritarian attempts to remain in power unchecked and unchallenged. For more than a year, California’s sovereignty has been under siege, and this lawsuit is his latest attack on the rule of law, the California Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “California will continue to deliver a free and fair election that follows both state and federal law, as the Judicial Branch — importantly a co-equal branch of government — is deciding in real time, much to the Trump Administration’s dismay.”

In opposing the administration’s request for a TRO, Attorney General Bonta argued that the court should deny the request because it would:

• Lack a legal basis: The administration has no legal basis to force California to segregate and not count ballots based on unverified claims about citizenship.
• Risk disenfranchising eligible voters: The administration’s list could include eligible voters, and the administration has not provided California with the underlying data and methodology needed to evaluate its validity.
• Violate federal and state law: The administration’s demands would conflict with federal laws protecting voting rights and California laws governing elections.
• Disrupt an ongoing election: Requiring California to change its ballot-counting procedures in the middle of an election would disrupt the election and create unnecessary confusion for election officials and voters.

The district court agreed with all those arguments, decisively rejecting the federal government’s motion.

In the order, the court observed that “[e]roded trust in our democracy is irreparable. Once a vote is segregated, lasting harm has occurred. If the Executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger. This Court declines to be a party to such process.” And it explained that “[p]oll taxes, literacy tests, and other obstacles [have been] used to prevent individuals from casting their vote. Every generation in our history has witnessed repeated clashes between those who seek to limit access to the ballot and those who fight to ensure it. In this case, the federal government seeks to segregate and exclude over 20,000 ballots. This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections. If Plaintiff’s last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process. Over 20,000 registered Californians would potentially lose the right that generations of Americans have fought to preserve. The Government’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.”

The Trump Administration’s latest attempt to interfere in California’s elections follows years of efforts to undermine election results and voting rights:

• After losing the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, President Trump pressured Georgia officials to “find” 11,780 votes, fueled the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol as Congress certified Biden’s victory, and continues to falsely claim that he won the 2020 presidential election — even seizing ballots from that election in Fulton County, Georgia, in January 2026 as part of efforts to relitigate the results.
• The Trump Administration sought to impose new restrictions on voting and election administration through executive orders that courts have found unlawful, including the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling led by Attorney General Bonta blocking the administration’s attempts to seize control of mail voting nationwide.
• In July 2026, the Trump Administration initially alleged that California had more than 190,000 noncitizens on its voter rolls, which the Trump Administration reduced to about 20,000 — a 90% decrease from their earlier allegations — before bringing this litigation. This mirrors the Trump Administration’s accusations against Nevada, where the Trump Administration initially claimed that Nevada had nearly 16,000 noncitizen voters. It later reduced that number to 185 voters and has not provided evidence to support its claim that all of the 185 individuals are noncitizens.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced an agreement with the Natomas Unified School District (Natomas Unified) to address unlawful policies and practices related to student privacy and school discipline. The complaint, filed in the Sacramento County Superior Court, and the stipulated judgment follows a comprehensive investigation by the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Children’s Justice. DOJ’s investigation revealed violations of federal and state laws, including violations of student privacy laws, anti-discrimination laws, and a state law that prohibits suspensions for willful defiance or classroom disruption. Natomas Unified proactively began implementing several changes to its policies, and DOJ worked cooperatively with Natomas Unified to enter into today’s agreement which includes a multi-year monitoring term, policy and procedure revisions, training, and the engagement of a Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) technical assistance provider to assist Natomas Unified with implementation of PBIS, which is evidence-based and has been shown to improve school climate, reduce behavioral incidents, decrease disciplinary referrals and suspensions, and promote positive student outcomes.  

“Ensuring all of California’s children have a fair and equal opportunity at success in school is a top priority — and we’re committed to taking action. My office conducted a thorough investigation of the Natomas Unified School District’s policies and practices related to student privacy and discipline and worked cooperatively with the District to reach today’s agreement,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I look forward to our continued collaboration and am confident that Natomas Unified will continue to implement these reforms to ensure they are in compliance with the law and that every child has equal access to a quality public education.”  

In January 2023, DOJ began an investigation under Government Code section 11180 et seq. to determine whether Natomas Unified’s policies and practices relating to school discipline and student privacy complied with federal and state laws. As part of the investigation, DOJ reviewed thousands of pages of documents and years of discipline data, and DOJ conducted site visits and numerous interviews with stakeholders and community members. Upon conclusion of the investigation, DOJ determined that the District’s policies and practices resulted in: 

Violations of student privacy laws: The investigation revealed that Natomas Unified violated the law by releasing confidential student education records to third parties without the required consent from the students’ parents or guardians as required under California law. 

Discrimination against Black students and students with disabilities: After analyzing Natomas Unified’s 2018-19 to 2024-25 school year discipline data, DOJ found that its discipline policies and practices resulted in discrimination for Black students and students with disabilities. These protected student groups were substantially overrepresented among those referred for discipline and were also more likely to receive harsher consequences in the form of exclusionary punishment including out-of-school suspensions or expulsion. DOJ’s investigation concluded that Natomas Unified’s disciplinary policies and practices were not necessary for Natomas Unified to meet a legitimate educational purpose, as it had less discriminatory alternatives to address student conduct.  

Unlawful student suspensions: DOJ’s investigation found that during the period analyzed, Natomas Unified issued out-of-school suspensions for disruption or willful defiance, including in several cases to students in kindergarten through eighth grade. Education Code section 48900, subdivision (k) prohibits the suspension of any student in grades kindergarten through 12 for disruption or willful defiance. 

DOJ and Natomas Unified worked cooperatively on an extensive two-year plan memorialized in a stipulated judgment that enjoins Natomas Unified from violating laws and regulations, requires it to designate a District coordinator to oversee implementation of the stipulated judgment and requires, among other things, Natomas Unified to do the following:

• Review and revise its policies and procedures regarding student discipline and confidentiality of student education records. 
• Engage a PBIS technical assistance provider to assist Natomas Unified with its implementation of PBIS.
• Conduct annual reviews of all exclusionary outcomes following a referral for expulsion.
• Provide staff with yearly training on various topics relating to student discipline and confidentiality of education records.
• Provide parents and guardians annual information sessions on various topics, including Natomas Unified’s commitment to fair and equitable treatment of all students in the administration of discipline.
• Create a Student Privacy section on the Natomas Unified website. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today reaffirmed the California Department of Justice’s commitment to protecting the civil rights of Californians with disabilities, especially amid efforts by the Trump Administration to roll back long-standing protections for people with disabilities. Both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), signed on September 26, 1973, ensure broad protections for people with disabilities, including their right to live in the most integrated settings appropriate. And in 1999, through the landmark case Olmstead v. L.C., the U.S. Supreme Court held that states are required to provide services to people with disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions when appropriate. This has allowed countless people with disabilities to live, work, and participate fully in their communities. 

“For over 50 years, disability rights laws have upheld the rights of people with disabilities to live in their communities, instead of being forced into institutional settings. These rights — hard-fought by the disability community, enacted by Congress, and affirmed by the Supreme Court — have supported people with disabilities to live in their communities and to enjoy everyday life activities, including family, friends, employment, economic independence, educational advancement, and cultural enrichment. Using flawed legal arguments, the Trump Administration is attempting to slash these longstanding protections. To be clear, the Trump Administration cannot change settled precedent interpreting Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA — nor can it rewrite these laws,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Let me be even clearer: The segregation and isolation of people with disabilities is discrimination and is illegal in California. People with disabilities have the right to live close to their loved ones, and in an environment where they feel comfortable and connected to their communities. In California, over 4.7 million people identify as having a disability, and everyone could experience a disability at some point in their lives. The California Department of Justice recognizes the valuable contributions that people with disabilities make to our communities despite inaccessibility and stigma. I remain committed to upholding the law and will use the full force of my office to protect the rights of Californians with disabilities.” 

A June 2026 memo from the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) attempts to reject well-established law — including Olmstead — that protects people with disabilities from unnecessary institutionalization. In the memo, OLC inaccurately asserts that states are not required by law to integrate mentally disabled patients with their peers by providing community or home-based care, an argument that runs counter to long-standing legal precedent and threatens to shape how federal agencies interpret the law and pursue enforcement.

In fact, following the June OLC memo, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), along with Texas, Florida, and Alaska, filed a proposed resolution of Texas v. Kennedy, a challenge to the implementation of Section 504 — which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of federal funds. Originally filed as Texas v. Becerra, the lawsuit was brought by a group of states against HHS to challenge updated 2024 Section 504 rules, specifically the regulations’ provisions regarding community integration for people with disabilities. The resolution asked the court to enter an order vacating references to community integration throughout the Section 504 regulations, including the entirety of the integration provision. On September 23, the court entered the order requested by HHS, closing the case.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to enforcing the laws that protect Californians with disabilities and ensuring that California is accessible and safe for all. In August, Attorney General Bonta issued a statewide guidance letter to local jurisdictions reminding them of their obligations under federal and state disability access laws to ensure that people with disabilities have meaningful access to emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. In February, he formally announced an investigation related to the emergency response to the Eaton Fire. Specifically, the investigation will seek to determine whether there was potential race, age, or disability discrimination in the emergency preparations and response in the historically Black community of West Altadena. The investigation is ongoing. 

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 — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted a coalition of states’ request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) 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. Last week, 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. The states simultaneously challenged an administrative subpoena from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the same data, and the court also paused that attempt.

“Just last week, I joined attorneys general across the country to challenge the Trump Administration, yet again, for attempting to seize personal, sensitive data on commercial drivers, and now the court has put a stop to these unlawful efforts,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today’s ruling marks another important step in making sure Americans’ privacy rights remain protected and resolute. When the President forgets the rules of the road, we’ll be there to remind him.”  

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 recently 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. DHS, in coordination with FMCSA, issued a separate subpoena seeking these very same records.

Last week, 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, and challenged DHS’s subpoena. Today’s orders temporarily halt this broad demand for information.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a multistate coalition in filing two lawsuits — against the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — that challenge the Trump Administration’s attempt to obtain the sensitive personal information of millions of drivers who have either a commercial driver’s license or commercial driver’s permit required to drive large, heavy, or hazardous commercial vehicles. The two federal agencies are demanding that the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) produce this sensitive information, which includes drivers’ names, license numbers, licensing states, and more. In the lawsuits, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that this broad demand for information is another example of federal overreach that weaponizes the personal data of specialized commercial drivers and runs afoul of the law. 

“True to form, the Trump Administration is again attempting to seize personal, sensitive data — this time from commercial drivers. Any such attempt is a capricious and dangerous federal overreach that must be stopped,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We’ve sued to block the blatant misuse of Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF data, and today, we’re suing again. Let me be clear: when the President crosses the line, we’ll be there to stand up for privacy rights and keep him in his lane. If the President wants to stop going to court, he should stop breaking the law.”

BACKGROUND

Founded in 1933, AAMVA represents state, provincial, and territorial motor vehicle officials in the United States and Canada. Among other functions, 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 has now 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 — resulting in another dangerous attempt to obtain sensitive data. DHS, in coordination with FMCSA, has issued a subpoena seeking these very same records. In the lawsuits, among other arguments, the coalition argues that these demands for CDLIS data exceed FMCSA’s and DHS’s authority, are barred by the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act, and are barred by the protections of the federal Privacy Act.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to protecting personal and private data. Last week, Attorney General Bonta sued over the Trump Administration’s attempt to weaponize sensitive personal information about California families and children. He has also sued and secured a court order blocking the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from providing DHS with unfettered access to individual personal health data. Previously, he also challenged and secured relief blocking the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s demand that states turn over personal and sensitive information about millions of SNAP recipients.

In filing these lawsuits, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the state of Pennsylvania. Additionally, the attorney general of Minnesota joined the DHS case. 

As extreme weather events increase in frequency and intensity, localities must ensure that people with disabilities are central to all emergency preparedness, response, and recovery efforts 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statewide guidance letter to local jurisdictions reminding them of their obligations under federal and state disability access laws to ensure that people with disabilities have meaningful access to emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. The guidance, developed by the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Enforcement Section through its Disability Rights Bureau, makes clear that inclusive emergency planning is a legal requirement that must be built into how local governments prepare for and respond to disasters.

“Every Californian deserves to know that their government has a plan for them — especially in moments of crisis,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California’s local jurisdictions have a legal obligation to integrate the needs of people with disabilities into all phases of emergency management — preparedness, response, and recovery. Today my office is releasing guidance to remind local jurisdictions of their legal obligations to their residents with disabilities and reaffirm California’s longstanding commitment to disability rights.”

People with disabilities often face significant barriers to critical support before, during, and after emergencies and disasters, like emergency notifications, evacuation, transportation, shelter and mass care, and recovery. As a result, people with disabilities are estimated to experience at least double the mortality rate of the general population during emergencies. Local jurisdictions must comply with disability access laws in their preparation for, response to, and recovery from emergencies. Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and applicable California laws, local governments must proactively plan for the needs of people with disabilities — people with disabilities cannot be required to individually request accommodations at the time of an emergency. These obligations extend to services delivered through private contractors. The guidance letter outlines these legal requirements and provides local jurisdictions with practical information to support compliance. The letter also highlights state and federal resources available to support local compliance, including training and planning information from state agencies.

The letter provides guidance in four key areas of emergency management:

• Accessible notifications and communications.
• Evacuation planning, including accessible transportation, medical equipment, and service animals.
• Sheltering, including accessible facilities, assistive technology, medical supplies, and staff training.
• Reintegration, including support reconnecting people with care, services, and accessible housing after a disaster.

The guidance letter is available at oag.ca.gov/civil/disability-rights.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to enforcing the laws that protect Californians with disabilities and ensuring that California is accessible and safe for all. In February, he formally announced an investigation related to the emergency response to the Eaton Fire. Specifically, the investigation will seek to determine whether there was potential race, age, or disability discrimination in the emergency preparations and response in the historically Black community of West Altadena. The investigation is ongoing. 

Files amicus brief in support of New York’s Green Light Law 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a multistate coalition, filed an amicus brief in defense of New York’s Driver’s License Access and Privacy Act, or “Green Light Law.” This law restricts the New York Department of Motor Vehicles’ (DMV) disclosure of drivers’ personal information to immigration enforcement agencies absent a court order or judicial warrant. The Trump Administration filed a lawsuit challenging the law, and a district court granted New York’s request to dismiss the complaint, rejecting the Trump Administration’s “sweeping” interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and holding that the statute applies only to information about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status. The Trump Administration subsequently appealed the decision. In the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that states like New York have reasonably concluded that disentangling their state from civil immigration enforcement promotes public safety and public trust and that these types of state laws are constitutional and do not impede federal immigration enforcement.   

“The Trump Administration continues to try to bully states for choosing to use their limited resources to promote public safety rather than assist in federal civil immigration enforcement,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Time and time again, the Trump Administration’s distorted view of our Constitution has been firmly rejected by courts — and time and time again, the Trump Administration has found new ways to waste taxpayer dollars on fruitless legal fights. New York’s Green Light law is a thoughtful exercise of state authority to protect the safety and well-being of its residents. As Attorney General, I will always stand up for public safety and the rights of our immigrant communities and support states that do the same.” 

New York’s Green Light Law (1) prohibits DMV from disclosing certain personal information and records to any agency that primarily enforces immigration law absent a court order or judicial warrant; (2) requires DMV, within three days of receiving a request for information from an agency that enforces immigration law, to notify the subject of the request; and (3) mandates that DMV require any person that accesses its information or records to certify that they will not use it for civil immigration purposes. In dismissing the Trump Administration’s lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that the Green Light Law is a lawful exercise of state authority to regulate the conduct of its officials and that it does not infringe on or impede federal immigration statutes. 

In the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to uphold the lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing that: 

• States like New York have reasonably concluded that limiting the use of state and local resources in civil immigration enforcement promotes public safety.
• State laws like New York’s are constitutional and do not serve as obstacles to the implementation of federal law, and the United States’s contrary argument raises serious Tenth Amendment concerns.
• New York’s law neither directly regulates the federal government nor impermissibly discriminates against it.

California has a number of laws that limit the use of state and local resources in civil immigration enforcement. Shortly before President Trump returned to office, Attorney General Bonta issued a package of updated bulletins and new guidance to assist state and local law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and defense counsel in complying with state law as California prepares for new threats to its immigrant communities. The Attorney General has also released a number of guidance documents to help California immigrants better understand their rights and protections under the law and assist state and local agencies, TK-12 schools, and childcare providers and preschool programs comply with new state laws. The full set of resources, available in multiple languages, can be accessed at oag.ca.gov/immigrant/. 

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

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in their ongoing effort to block the illegal development of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County near Gilroy, California. Earlier this month, Attorney General Bonta and County Counsel LoPresti filed a lawsuit challenging the unlawful development of this facility, arguing that it violates the National Environmental Policy Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and California’s Williamson Act. In their motion for a preliminary injunction, Attorney General Bonta and County Counsel LoPresti detail the dangers of developing such a facility without any environmental review or consultation with state and local governments. Without judicial intervention to halt ongoing development, the federal government will continue its reckless attempt to construct a facility that threatens the local ecosystem, habitat, and infrastructure, along with the many people and families who would be impacted by this facility.

“This attempt to construct an ICE facility without complying with the applicable laws is dangerous for the environment and for our people. California refuses to stand idly by,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “We’re asking the court to pause this development and ensure the interests of our communities are properly protected. The law isn’t written in disappearing ink, and it’s time for the Trump Administration to take a step back and read it clearly.”

“This motion demonstrates that, with public health and the environment at stake, the federal government chose secrecy over transparency and speed over deliberation,” said Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti. “We’re confident the court will hold the federal government accountable to the clear legal requirements that apply to this project — requirements that the federal government has so far completely ignored.”

In January 2025, a private developer leased the 24.5-acre parcel to the federal government for use by ICE — likely as an Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) holding facility. ERO holding facilities, which are primarily designed for administrative processing and short-term detainment, have been the subject of numerous lawsuits during the Trump Administration, and investigative reports have revealed frequent overcrowding, long-term confinement, and inhumane conditions. Since leasing the property near Gilroy, the federal government has proceeded with a plan to quickly and surreptitiously develop a facility. In doing so, the federal government has ignored important environmental concerns and federal laws. 

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. This motion for a preliminary injunction asks the court to halt the development of the facility, which includes designing, procuring, renovating, retrofitting, demolishing, constructing, or taking any other actions to physically alter the property.

In their motion, Attorney General Bonta and County Counsel LoPresti argue that:

• The federal government’s decision to enter into a lease agreement and begin construction for a holding facility at the property is a major federal action with likely significant impacts to the environment, which triggered environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. 
• The federal government did not attempt to consult with the county or the state to solicit their views about the project, and the federal government’s obscurement of its plans to develop and operate a holding facility at the property prevented the county and the state from providing input to the federal government, in violation of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act.
• These failures and violations of law warrant a preliminary injunction and halting the construction because the federal government must abide by the law, and the real and likely harm from continuing development outweighs the risk of delaying construction.