Civil Rights

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led a coalition of 24 attorneys general in sending a comment letter to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) opposing an unlawful attempt to rollback regulations under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The FHA prohibits discrimination based on the effects of a housing policy, even if the intent of the policy was not to discriminate. HUD’s proposed rule change would remove all mentions of liability under the FHA for discrimination that results from the effects of an action. 

“Once again, the Trump Administration is attempting to shirk its obligation to end housing discrimination and foster diverse communities. We fought similar attempts during the first Trump presidency, and we have no qualms about doing so again now,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This is a matter of right and wrong. While we have made progress in recent decades, there’s still more work to do — and my fellow attorneys general and I are committed to protecting the hard-won gains that have been made and building on them.”

In their letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition assert that discrimination and segregation in housing persist in the country and disproportionately harm people of color, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, individuals with disabilities, and other historically marginalized groups. The coalition is urging HUD to keep the current rule in place to ensure greater equality of opportunity in housing. 

The attorneys general argue that:

• Discriminatory effects liability is a critical tool for HUD and states to enforce the FHA and state laws and to protect residents against arbitrary and unnecessary practices that limit access to housing. States have used discriminatory effects claims to challenge many types of seemingly neutral policies that can have a discriminatory effect, such as zoning ordinances, occupancy restrictions, no-pet policies, and English-only policies.
• Removal of these regulations would increase burdens on state agencies to provide information about rights and responsibilities. It would also send a false message that certain forms of unlawful discrimination are now acceptable, even though they remain prohibited under the law. 
• The proposed rule change would be unlawful because HUD failed to provide a justification for removing the longstanding regulations and because the existing rule accurately reflects federal law. They also argue HUD failed to consider that the existing rule benefits the public by providing a consistent, nationwide resource that clearly explains what conduct violates the FHA and what the legal standard is for making discrimination claims and defending against them.

The comment letter was co-led by Attorney General Bonta, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Joining them are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

LOS ANGELES — California Attorney General Bonta today formally announced the commencement of an investigation by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) 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 Eaton Fire burned 14,021 acres, killing at least 19 people, destroying over 9,000 buildings, and becoming one of the deadliest fires in California history. The average age of the people who died was 77 years old. 

“Today, the California Department of Justice formally announces an investigation into the emergency response during the 2025 Eaton Fire. My office will be investigating whether there was race, age, or disability discrimination in the emergency response in West Altadena, which claimed the lives of at least 19 people. Specifically, we'll be looking at whether the systems and structures at play contributed to a delay in the County’s evacuation notice and possible disparities in emergency response in West Altadena,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The West Altadena community rang the alarm and brought compelling evidence to the attention of my office. We know that evacuation warnings for the historically Black neighborhood of West Altadena came many hours after these same warnings were sent to the rest of Altadena. We must let the facts uncovered by our investigation determine what went wrong here, but one thing holds true: The people of West Altadena deserve answers to their questions and deserve institutions that are responsive to their concerns, and institutions they can trust. As the People’s Attorney, I and the entirety of the California Department of Justice work for the People. I thank the communities that reached out, spoke up, and organized during a time of immense grief, loss, and rebuilding.”

The investigation will be spearheaded by DOJ’s Civil Rights Enforcement Section. DOJ's investigation will focus on potential violations of civil rights laws, legal questions that fall under DOJ’s purview. While DOJ is committed to transparency, in order to protect the integrity of this investigation, no further updates can be given at this time.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today shared hate crime guidance and resources in response to reports of childcare providers in California facing targeted harassment, surveillance, and stalking by internet vigilantes alleging fraudulent activity. Attorney General Bonta reminds Californians of existing guidance and resources for law enforcement, prosecutors, and victims of hate crimes. According to reports, these actions have involved uninvited home visits and filming. Last week, the United Domestic Workers union reported a spike in harassment at Somali-run daycare centers in San Diego. This is not only dangerous and terrifying for daycare providers, but also the children they care for. 

“Reports that pseudo-investigators are stalking and intimidating San Diegan childcare providers at their homes and places of business are extremely alarming. Our childcare providers do critical work and are the backbone of what makes life possible for many working families. These internet vigilantes are harassing Californians and seeking to alienate folks from their neighbors and communities, right out of the Trumpian playbook,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California has laws that prohibit this type of harassment. I encourage Californians and law enforcement agencies to know their rights and familiarize themselves with laws that protect folks. No one should be harassed at work.”

In California, it is considered a hate crime if you are targeted because of your actual or perceived nationality, including your immigration or citizenship status. If you witness or are the victim of a hate crime, you should report it to your local law enforcement agency. California law prohibits law enforcement authorities from asking individuals, including those who are reporting or victims of potential crimes, about their immigration status, unless the information is necessary to certify the victim for a U visa (victim of crime visa) or T visa (victim of human trafficking visa). 

Resources for the Reporting of and Response to Hate Crimes

Crimes motivated by hate are not just attacks on individual innocent people — they are attacks on our communities and the entire State. It is the job of the California Department of Justice to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced.

For law enforcement and prosecutors: 

The California Department of Justice has tools and resources to aid and assist local, state, and federal law enforcement authorities in the investigation of possible hate crimes, including the identification, arrest, prosecution, and conviction of the perpetrators of those crimes. If you wish to report a crime, please file a report with the local police or sheriff's department. 

• Law Enforcement Bulletin on Laws Prohibiting Hate Crimes and/or Provide for Enhanced Penalties for Specific Hate Crimes
• Hate Crimes Rapid Response Protocol for the Deployment of CADOJ Resources
• Guidance to Prosecutors on Hate Crimes

For victims of hate crimes: 

A hate crime is a crime against a person, group, or property motivated by the victim's real or perceived protected social group. You may be the victim of a hate crime if you have been targeted because of your actual or perceived: (1) disability, (2) gender, (3) nationality, (4) race or ethnicity, (5) religion, (6) sexual orientation, and/or (7) association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics. Hate crimes are serious crimes that may result in imprisonment or jail time. If you are the victim of a hate crime you should:

• Contact the local law enforcement agency right away.
• Get medical attention (if you need it).
• Write down the exact words that were said.
• Make notes about any other facts.
• Save all evidence (e.g., graffiti, eggshells, writing on victim's vehicle). If safe, wait until law enforcement arrives and takes photos.
• Get the names, addresses, phone numbers, and emails of other victims and witnesses.
• Try to get a description from any eyewitnesses of the criminal or the vehicle.
• Contact community organizations in your area that respond to hate crimes.

For more information and printable PDFs, please visit:

• Know Your Rights and Protections Under Hate Crimes Laws
• How to Report Hate Crimes and Incidents and Get Help. This brochure is available in: Spanish, Arabic, Armenian, Cambodian, Chinese (Simplified), Chinese (Traditional), Farsi, Japanese, Korean, Punjabi, Russian, Tagalog, and Vietnamese

More information on hate crimes is available at oag.ca.gov/hatecrimes.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 16 attorneys general in filing a comment letter opposing the U.S. Department of Education (U.S. ED)’s proposal to remove certain reporting requirements that help U.S. ED identify significant disproportionalities in special education programming for children with disabilities based on race. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that U.S. ED’s proposal removes valuable oversight of state methodologies, overestimates the burden the current reporting requirements place on states, and harms states’ abilities to ensure equal opportunities and outcomes for all students. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition also argue that U.S. ED has failed to adequately address comments made in response to the proposal’s previous announcement. 

“President Trump’s Department of Education is using flawed reasoning and ignoring public comment in its effort to end reporting requirements that help address race-based inequalities in special education for students with disabilities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Students of color are disproportionately identified as children with disabilities compared to their peers, and too often by mistake. This was true when U.S. ED first announced this proposal, and it remains true now. Yet U.S. ED has failed to meaningfully address the concerns that my fellow attorneys general and I expressed in this proposal’s first comment period. We will not stand by while U.S. ED attempts to baselessly halt oversight of methodologies that help states identify and address racial and ethnic inequities in our classrooms. We will continue to fight for evidence-based educational systems that improve outcomes for all students.” 

On August 22, 2025, U.S. ED announced a proposal to no longer require states to submit to the Department for review changes to the methodologies they use to identify significant disproportionalities in special education programming for children with disabilities based on race. On October 21, 2025, Attorney General Bonta filed a multistate comment letter urging U.S. ED to withdraw the proposal. On January 9, 2026, U.S. ED announced a second request for public comment regarding its proposal.  

In today’s letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition once again urge U.S. ED to reconsider and withdraw its proposal. In the letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that:

• U.S. ED’s proposal would end much-needed oversight and prevent U.S. ED from fulfilling its obligation to assess changes states make to their methodologies for assessing significant disproportionalities based on race. 
• U.S. ED has failed to adequately address public comments made in response to its August 2025 announcement of the proposal, including the common sentiment that the public values the collection and publication of states’ methodologies.
• To justify its proposal, U.S. ED relies on an overestimation of the burden the affected reporting requirement places on states. From states’ experiences, the reporting burden is both minimal and worth bearing to identify and address significant disproportionality.
• Eliminating the states’ obligation to report changes to their methodology for calculating significant disproportionate representation in special education undermines the states’ interest in ensuring public transparency and equal educational opportunities and outcomes for all students, including students of color and students with disabilities. 

Attorney General Bonta and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul co-led today’s letter, and are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined 12 attorneys general in submitting an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Female Athletes United v. Ellison opposing challenges to Minnesota’s policies allowing transgender students to participate in youth sports in a manner consistent with their gender identity. In the brief, the attorneys general argue that transgender inclusive state laws have long been demonstrated to meet Title IX requirements, improve transgender youth’s physical and mental health, and create more positive school environments for all students.

“State laws like those in Minnesota protect transgender students’ right to thrive in school environments as their authentic selves,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Female Athletes United is attempting to use a misinterpretation of Title IX to justify discrimination against transgender youth. We will continue to fight against unlawful attacks on transgender and other LGBTQ+ individuals’ rights whenever and wherever they occur.”

On May 19, 2025, the advocacy group Female Athletes United (FAU) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota requesting a preliminary injunction against the Minnesota Attorney General and other state officials. FAU alleged that Minnesota’s statewide policy allowing transgender students to compete in sports in a manner consistent with their gender identity violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. In September, the district court denied FAU’s motion, and FAU filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 

In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the Eighth Circuit to affirm the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. In the brief, the coalition argues that:

• States have a long history of upholding laws protecting transgender youth from discrimination. These laws have demonstrably improved physical and mental health for transgender students and enabled school climates that facilitate better educational outcomes for all, without reducing opportunities for cisgender students.
• In contrast to FAU’s claims, federal legal precedent overwhelmingly shows transgender inclusive policies are permitted under Title IX.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to protecting the rights of transgender individuals to live life as their authentic selves. Last month, Attorney General Bonta joined a multistate amicus brief supporting transgender students’ challenges to West Virginia and Idaho laws forbidding transgender girls from participating in sex-separated sports consistent with their gender identity.

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Washington, Connecticut, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 17 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter to the U.S. Department of Education (ED) reaffirming their opposition to the Trump Administration’s proposal requiring colleges and universities to submit data linking race to admissions, financial aid, and student performance. ED claims to be seeking data to assist it in enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race. In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the attorneys general argue that the proposal would not only not aid in Title VI enforcement, it also imposes unreasonable burdens on schools and universities, endangers student privacy, and is unlikely to result in useful data being collected. The coalition highlights that ED has failed to respond to the many substantive concerns expressed in response to ED’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)’ August 15 request for comment on the proposal. 

“The Trump Administration has continued to push forward its demand that colleges adhere to unreasonable, unnecessary reporting burdens — all in service of President Trump’s assault on lawful diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and schools he dislikes,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The U.S. Department of Education has ignored feedback from states and the public that this proposal threatens students’ privacy and is highly likely to produce inaccurate or unusable results. We will not allow data to be weaponized against the schools and students its collection should empower. We call on the Department of Education to rescind this fundamentally flawed proposal.”

On August 7, 2025, President Trump directed ED to expand the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), an already-required survey, to address alleged concerns about race-conscious admissions practices in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The new survey section would collect a broad range of data on undergraduate and graduate admissions, financial aid, and student outcomes, including data by race and sex, on 1) the institutions’ applied, admitted, and enrolled cohorts, disaggregated by admission test score, GPA, family income, Pell Grant eligibility and parental education; 2) average high school grade point average and admission test scores; and 3) the count of students admitted via early action, early decision, or regular admissions. Additionally, the survey would include data about students receiving financial aid, including the average amount, cost of attendance, graduation rates, and graduates’ final cumulative grade point average. 

On August 15, 2025, ED submitted a request for comment over a 60-day period to gather public feedback regarding the expansion of IPEDS. Attorney General Bonta, along with 17 other state attorneys general, submitted comments opposing the proposal. On November 13, 2025, ED submitted a second request for public comment, with submission open until December 15.

In today's comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge ED to withdraw the proposal, or to, at a minimum, delay its implementation to give more opportunities to gather and respond to stakeholder feedback. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that:

• The proposed data collection is neither necessary nor beneficial to the ED’s stated goal of enforcing Title VI.
• The proposal not only imposes unreasonable burdens on colleges and universities — requiring them to gather and submit never-before-collected data within a shortened timeline — but creates an untested procedure for submitting data, meaning the new data will likely not be processed or used in a timely manner.
• NCES’ responses to comments received during the first public comment period failed to adequately address concerns that the proposed data collection not only lacks privacy protections for students, but is also “almost unworkable” due to administrative burdens, unclear instructions, data quality concerns, unavailable data, and the short timeline.
• Withdrawing, delaying, or limiting the initial rollout of the proposal would allow NCES to gather and implement feedback to minimize burdens on schools and enhance the quality and usefulness of the data collected.

Attorney General Bonta remains committed to protecting California’s education institutions from unwarranted federal attacks and defending their efforts to foster diversity, equity, inclusion, and to serve all students. In March, Attorney General Bonta, as part of a multistate coalition, issued guidance to institutions of higher education and K-12 schools regarding their obligations under federal civil rights laws and the U.S. Constitution. In October, Attorney General Bonta filed a multistate letter opposing a Trump Administration proposal to remove reporting requirements that help ED identify disparities in representation in special education programming for children with disabilities based on race. In November, Attorney General Bonta successfully blocked an effort by ED to rescind funding supporting academic recovery of students following the COVID-19 pandemic.

In filing the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert reminding consumers and lenders that credit discrimination remains illegal, under both California law and federal law. In October, as part of the Trump Administration’s continued gutting of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the CFPB prematurely terminated the consent order that documented its settlement with Citibank for allegedly discriminating against Armenian-American credit card applicants in Southern California, sending a strong message of the Trump Administration’s abandonment of these critical protections for consumers. 

“Credit discrimination remains illegal in California and throughout the United States. The Trump Administration’s premature termination of the settlement with Citibank for discriminating against Armenian-American applicants in California is alarming and no doubt another sign of the Bureau abandoning its obligation to protect the American people from unfair treatment by big corporations,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This, however, is not a sign that no one is looking. Let me be very clear: I will use the force of my office against financial institutions that deny brighter financial futures to Californians on the basis of their sex, race, religion or any protected characteristics.”

What is Credit Discrimination?

Credit discrimination is when a lender makes a decision about offering or denying credit based on a person's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, military or veteran status, because they receive public assistance, or based on another impermissible basis. Credit discrimination can manifest in various ways, such as consumers being discouraged from applying for credit, being offered less favorable terms such as higher interest rates or higher fees, or being refused credit despite meeting requirements, because of the factors listed above. 

People use credit to take out student loans, open businesses, and buy cars and homes. Building credit helps consumers to build a better future for themselves and future generations. Credit discrimination prevents people from having access to these opportunities and can make credit more expensive.

The Legal Bits: Federal and State Laws Banning Credit Discrimination

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination by banks, lenders, credit card companies, and other lenders and financial institutions. 

The federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits financial institutions from discriminating against individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender, marital status, age, receipt of public assistance, and other protected characteristics in all aspects of credit transactions, including applications, approvals, and terms and conditions. (15 U.S.C. section 1691 et seq.)

Similarly, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act) prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, age, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, gender, or gender identity, as well as other protected characteristics by any business providing services in the state. (See Cal. Civ. Code section 51 et seq.) In addition to prohibiting discrimination in credit transactions, the Unruh Act prohibits banks, lenders, credit card companies, financial institutions, and other businesses from discrimination in any and all services that the business may provide.

California law also offers specific protections against discrimination in lending for housing finance. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, any financial institution that provides financial assistance for the purchase, organization, or construction of any housing accommodation is prohibited from discriminating in the terms or conditions of financing on the basis of protected characteristics, including but not limited to race, color, religion, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, disability, source of income, veteran or military status, and genetic information. (See Cal. Gov’t Code section 12955, subd. (e).) Likewise, California’s Holden Act provides similar protections against discriminatory practices in housing finance. (See Bus. & Prof. Code section 35800 et seq.). And California's Military and Veterans Code prohibits discriminatory practices targeting members of the armed forces. (See Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code section 394).

Report It!

People who believe that they have been denied services or discriminated against because of a protected characteristic, and whistleblowers with information regarding potential violations of state or federal fair lending laws, can file a complaint with:

• The California Attorney General’s Office: oag.ca.gov/report
• The California Civil Rights Department: calcivilrights.ca.gov
• The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation:  dfpi.ca.gov/submit-a-complaint/

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a coalition of 15 attorneys general in submitting an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Little v. Hecox and Virginia v. B.P.J. supporting challenges to laws in West Virginia and Idaho barring transgender girls from participating in youth sports in a manner consistent with their gender identity. The plaintiffs in both cases are transgender female students. In the brief, the attorneys general argue that the challenged laws violate federal anti-discrimination law, and that preventing discrimination against transgender youth brings evidence-based benefits to both those individuals and broader school environments.

“All children deserve the right to fully participate in school activities as their authentic selves.” said Attorney General Bonta. “Policies that block transgender students from joining sports teams consistent with their gender identity are both discriminatory and unlawful. Whether it be rebuking military service bans, defending gender-affirming care, or opposing unjust school policies like these, my office will continue to fight against threats to LGBTQ+ individuals’ rights wherever and whenever they arise.”

Transgender female students B.P.J. and Lindsay Hecox filed lawsuits seeking to enjoin enforcement of West Virginia Code § 18-2-25d and Idaho Code § 33-6203 respectively, each of which bar transgender female students from participating in sex-separated sports consistent with their gender identity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that B.P.J. was entitled to summary judgment because to the West Virginia law violates B.P.J.’s rights under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that Hecox was entitled to a preliminary injunction because the Idaho law likely violates her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm both of the decisions made by the U.S. Court of Appeals. The attorneys general argue that:

• Policies that protect transgender youth from discrimination protect such youth against serious physical and mental harms and support broader school climates that enhance students’ well-being and improve learning outcomes;
• The challenged laws apply only to transgender women and girls and not transgender men nor cisgender individuals. The laws therefore violate the Federal Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, as they discriminate on the basis of transgender status and sex; and
• In contrast to some claims by defendants in the two lawsuits, Title IX does not prohibit states from allowing transgender students to use sex-separated spaces in a way that is consistent with their gender identity.

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New York, Hawai’i, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the brief can be found here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 16 attorneys general in filing a comment letter opposing the Trump Administration’s proposal to remove certain reporting requirements that help the U.S. Department of Education determine whether local education agencies have significant disparities in representation in special education programming for children with disabilities based on race. Data and research have shown for decades that students are disproportionately identified for special education and related services, and disproportionately placed in segregated, restrictive special education settings, based on race and ethnicity. As such, it is necessary for the Department to evaluate whether states are using approaches that accurately identify and address this imbalance, rather than obscure it. California has a longstanding commitment to gathering and reporting detailed information on student’s educational experiences to promote equitable access to education for all students regardless of race, ethnicity, and disability status.  

“The Trump Administration wants to get rid of reporting requirements that help shine a light on race-based disparities in special education for students with disabilities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The disturbing reality is that children of color are disproportionately — and often mistakenly — represented in special education. Transparency in identifying and reporting this data is critical to addressing longstanding racial and ethnic inequities that remain pervasive and deeply problematic in our classrooms today. I stand with attorneys general from across the country in defense of efforts to improve, not obscure, how this data is collected and measured to build a better educational system that lifts up and supports all our students.”

Children of color are identified as children with disabilities at substantially higher rates than their peers, and there is a strong concern that some of these children may have been improperly identified as children with disabilities, putting them at a disadvantage in their education. Misidentification interferes with a school’s ability to provide children with appropriate educational services and raises concerns of potential inequities in both educational opportunities and outcomes. The U.S. Department of Education, through its Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations, has for years sought to bring critical awareness to the problem, and to ensure that state and local educational agencies are working to address it — until now. Under this proposal, the Department seeks to improperly remove the requirement for states to report changes to their methodology for calculating significant disproportionality, falsely claiming that it will relieve states of administrative burden. Yet the data collection is far from burdensome for states — states are only required to submit standard methodologies one time and then resubmit upon any revisions to the standards set. Completing and submitting the form imposes minimal burden, and the benefits of tracking this important information outweigh any conceivable burden this data collection involves. 

If the U.S. Department of Education eliminates the reporting requirement it will be impossible for the Department’s Office of Special Education Programs to assess the reasonableness of any changes that states may make to their policies. Some states may revert to prior practices that could prevent them from identifying the magnitude of racial and ethnic overrepresentation in special education. Without publicly available information on how states calculate this imbalance, decisions about which local education agencies are identified as having imbalances and required to take corrective action will occur behind closed doors, shielded from both Department oversight and meaningful public scrutiny. Reporting is necessary for the Department to evaluate whether states are using appropriate approaches that accurately identify and address disproportionate representation in special education, rather than hide it.

In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the Department of Education to withdraw its proposed rule for these reasons: 

1. Eliminating the states’ obligation to report changes to their methodology for calculating significant disproportionate representation in special education undermines the states’ interest in ensuring equal educational opportunities and outcomes for all students, including students of color and students with disabilities.
2. Removing the reporting requirement will end much-needed oversight and prevent the Department of Education from fulfilling its obligation to evaluate the rationality of changes states may make to their methodologies for calculating significant disproportionality.

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington in filing the comment letter.

A copy of the letter can be found here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 18 attorneys general in opposing the Trump Administration’s proposal to require colleges and universities to submit data linking race to admissions, financial aid, and student performance. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) claims to be seeking data to assist it in enforcing Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based on race. Higher education institutions in California have not used race as a factor in admissions or financial aid since Proposition 209 passed in 1996. In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the proposed data collection would require these institutions to undertake new, costly, and burdensome data collection efforts on an unreasonable timeframe and is unlikely to yield high quality data or achieve ED’s stated goals. The coalition expresses concern that, instead of addressing purported racial discrimination in postsecondary admissions or ensuring compliance with Title VI, this data may instead be misused to improperly target colleges and universities with lawful diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives or who have ideological differences with the current administration. 

“The Trump Administration is demanding that colleges turn over massive amounts of student data, forcing institutions to scramble under costly, confusing, and unnecessary reporting burdens, all to support President Trump’s scheme to weaponize data against colleges and universities this Administration disfavors,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Data should empower colleges and universities to better serve their students, not be used as a weapon to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. We call on the U.S. Department of Education to abandon its pretense of accountability and rescind this burdensome proposal.”  

On August 7, 2025, President Trump directed ED to expand the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), an already-required survey, to address alleged concerns about race-conscious admissions practices in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (SFFA v. Harvard). The new survey section will collect a broad range of data on undergraduate and graduate admissions, financial aid, and student outcomes, including data by race and sex on 1) the institutions’ applied, admitted, and enrolled cohorts, disaggregated by admission test score, GPA, family income, Pell Grant eligibility and parental education; 2) average high school grade point average and admission test scores; and 3) the count of students admitted via early action, early decision, or regular admissions. Additionally, the survey will include data about students receiving financial aid, including the average amount, cost of attendance, graduation rates, and graduates’ final cumulative grade point average. 

In the letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition highlight concerns with the proposal:

The proposed data collection will not achieve its stated goals: The proposal will not achieve the aim of helping to address racial discrimination. In SFFA v. Harvard, the Supreme Court held that the use of race as one factor in college admissions decisions violated equal protection. However, nothing in the ruling prevents colleges and universities from lawfully pursuing diversity as part of their mission. And given the variety of factors colleges use in making admissions and scholarship decisions, as well as the complex factors influencing student performance and graduation rates, it would be impossible to identify racial discrimination based on the data collection. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition raise alarms that ED may weaponize this data to aid the Trump Administration in targeting college and university it disagrees with. The attorneys general highlight the lack of consultation and input from stakeholders, the rushed process, and the alignment with the administration anti-DEI efforts as signs that ED may attempt to use this data to pressure these institutions to adopt administration priorities and abandon lawful efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion rather than to enforce anti-discrimination laws. 

The proposed data collection is unreasonably burdensome and is unlikely to result in high-quality data: The proposed data collection would require four-year colleges and universities to complete thousands of new survey data fields, despite vague definitions and unclear instructions. The schools would need to produce the data in a short, unreasonable timeframe, without proper input from stakeholders, and follow the burdensome requirement to submit data for five previous years. Much of the data requested will be inconsistently available across institutions and student populations, making it difficult to make meaningful comparisons. And the level of disaggregation proposed will also further splinter the data into small subgroups that make it less likely that statistically significant conclusions can be drawn, and poses concerns related to student privacy.

Attorney General Bonta remains committed to protecting California’s higher education institutions from unwarranted federal attacks and defending their efforts to foster diversity, equity, inclusion, and to serve all students. In March, Attorney General Bonta, as part of a multistate coalition, issued guidance to institutions of higher education and K-12 schools regarding their obligations under federal civil rights laws and the U.S. Constitution. 

In filing the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. 

A copy of the comment letter is available here.