Education

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today celebrated a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which declared that the U.S. Department of Education acted illegally by discontinuing grants awarded through Congressionally-established school mental health funding programs. The decision requires the Department to issue new funding decisions to 21 grantees in California. Because the Department has not identified any concerns with the grantees’ performance, the Department will likely resume funding to the grantees, including tens of millions of dollars to support high-need, low-income, and rural California schools. This funding is critical to students’ well-being, safety, and academic success. Today’s decision vacates the Trump Administration’s directive to halt these grants and brings the lawsuit by the attorneys general to a final resolution, subject to appeal. 

“The courts have once again agreed with states nationwide and halted the Trump Administration’s illegal actions. This time, the President tried mightily to rip away funding that supported the mental health of our most vulnerable students. California and our sister states stepped in, and we are proud to have secured a court ruling permanently barring the U.S. Department of Education from withholding mental health funding from schools for any reason that does not have to do with grantees’ performance,” said Attorney General Bonta. “These mental health programs do critical work to ensure students not only succeed but thrive. California is committed and at the ready to defend our future generations from attack by an Administration intent on breaking the law. Today, we’ve done just that.”

Today’s decision also permanently blocks the U.S. Department of Education from deciding whether to continue funding to grantees based on new priorities or information that is not relevant to grantees’ performance and specifies that the Department cannot deny an award based on performance issues that were caused by the Department’s unlawful actions challenged in this case and their disruptive effects.

In July, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 16 attorneys general in suing the Trump Administration over their discontinuation of these grants, and in October, the coalition secured a preliminary injunction blocking the Department from discontinuing grants and stating that the Trump Administration's actions were likely unlawful. 

BACKGROUND

Spurred by episodes of devastating loss from school shootings, Congress established and funded the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program (MHSP) in 2018 and the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program (SBMH) in 2020 to increase students’ access to mental health services. MHSP addresses the shortage of school-based mental health service providers by awarding multi-year grants to projects that expand the pipeline for counselors, social workers, and psychologists through partnerships between institutes of higher education and local educational agencies; and SBMH funds multi-year grants to increase the number of professionals that provide school-based mental health services to students through direct hiring and retention incentives. The ultimate goal of the programs is to permanently bring 14,000 additional mental health professionals into U.S. schools.

The programs have been an incredible success. In their first year, the programs provided mental and behavioral health services to nearly 775,000 elementary and secondary students nationwide. Sampled projects showed real results: a 50% reduction in suicide risk at high-need schools, decreases in absenteeism and behavioral issues, and increases in positive student-staff engagement. Data also showed recruitment and retention efforts are working – in the first year of the programs, nearly 1,300 school mental health professionals were hired and 95% of those hired were retained. Importantly, these newly hired school-based mental health providers were able to create an 80% reduction in student wait time for services. The grants have helped schools hire hundreds of psychologists, counselors, and social workers who have served thousands of students, including in the state’s most economically disadvantaged and rural communities. By all markers, these programs work.

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

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 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.

Proposed rule could block student loan forgiveness for thousands, deter job seekers from entering public service

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in opposing a proposed U.S. Department of Education (ED) regulation that would exclude some employees from Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) eligibility based on whether their employers engage in actions that the Trump Administration deems to have a "substantial illegal purpose.” The proposed rule may threaten PSLF eligibility for organizations that are engaged in longstanding, important, and legal activities, such as providing legal or other services to immigrants, providing gender-affirming care to minors, participating in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, or engaging in civil protest and the right to assembly. 

“Nationwide, millions of Americans took out student loans to become public servants with the promise of debt relief down the line, and now, the Trump Administration is attempting to hold this debt relief tool hostage from employers that engage in actions the President does not like,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The promise of Public Service Loan Forgiveness allows states like California to attract and retain talent to serve the public good — this is critically important and essential for borrowers who would otherwise be unable to afford serving in the public sector. Today, I urge the U.S. Department of Education to reconsider this vague and arbitrary rule and put public service ahead of retributive political games.”

PUBLIC SERVICE LOAN FORGIVENESS BACKGROUND

In 2007, a bipartisan Congress created PSLF to encourage college graduates to work in the public sector, where salaries are often lower than at for-profit companies. The PSLF program enables public servants who work in eligible government and nonprofit roles to have their qualifying federal student loans forgiven after 10 years of qualifying service and payments. It helps public service employers recruit and retain skilled workers who might otherwise be forced to turn to private sector employment to afford to pay their student loans. Many California state employees are eligible for, actively pursuing, or have already benefited from PSLF as a means of managing the significant student debt that they incurred in preparing for skilled public service careers. 

THE PROPOSED RULE 

ED’s proposed rule would allow the Secretary of Education to disqualify employers from PSLF if she determines they are engaged in “substantially illegal” activity. The vagueness of the rule could empower the Trump Administration to target politically disfavored conduct and may threaten PSLF eligibility for organizations that are engaged in longstanding and legal activities. As drafted, the rule would create uncertainty as to who is an eligible employer and will deter student borrowers from entering public service. If allowed to go into effect, ED could deem the State of California or specific California state agencies ineligible for PSLF, denying loan relief to state employees, and undercutting the state’s ability to recruit and retain skilled employees.  

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

A copy of the letter can be found here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced joining a coalition of 18 attorneys general in urging the U.S. Department of Education not to limit schools’ abilities to support students’ mental health needs and create a bureaucratic mess for school districts seeking grant funding. The comment letter submitted by the attorneys general calls attention to the Department’s proposed changes to its School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program (SBMH) and Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program (MHSP). The changes would, among other things, further implement the Department’s illegal decision to discontinue previously awarded grants — an action that Attorney General Bonta and a coalition of states are actively challenging in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

“The Trump Administration should be doing everything in its power to support the well-being of our students — particularly those who need mental health services the most. Tragically, it is not,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I are already in court defending the two grant programs at issue, and with our comment letter, we are doubling down on our efforts to ensure students in our states can benefit from these programs that are critical to students’ well-being, safety, and academic success. We will continue holding the Trump Administration accountable until it reverses course and follows the law.” 

Spurred by episodes of devastating loss from school shootings, Congress established and funded MHSP in 2018 and SBMH in 2020 to increase students’ access to mental health services. MHSP addresses the nation’s shortage of school-based mental health service providers by awarding multi-year grants to projects that expand the pipeline for counselors, social workers, and psychologists through partnerships between institutes of higher education and local education agencies. SBMH funds multi-year grants to increase the number of professionals that provide school-based mental health services to students through direct hiring and retention incentives. The ultimate goal of the programs is to permanently bring 14,000 additional mental health professionals into schools nationwide. In California, 44 universities and local education agencies are receiving vital grant funding through these programs. 

In the comment letter, the attorneys general underscore that: 

• The Department’s proposed priorities and program requirements are concerning because they fund only services provided by “school psychologists” — as opposed to services from other qualified mental health service providers like counselors, social workers, and psychologists.
• The Department is proposing a vague and problematic requirement: “Applicants that receive an award under this program are prohibited from using program funds for promoting or endorsing: (1) gender ideology, (2) political activism, (3) racial stereotyping, or (4) hostile environments for students of particular races.” This requirement violates the Constitution, which prohibits the Department from conditioning federal financial assistance on vague requirements. This program requirement could also be at odds with grantees’ existing legal obligations, including critical civil rights protections, because it could be read to prohibit grantees’ efforts to support students from particular racial backgrounds or English Language Learners.
• The Department should modify the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions to bring them into conformity with governing law and resolve the deficiencies outlined by the attorneys general.   

Joining Attorney General Bonta in sending the letter are the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington. 

A copy of the comment letter can be found here.

SAN FRANCISCO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today delivered remarks on California Department of Justice’s preparations to protect California’s values, people, and natural resources ahead of a second Trump Administration. To view a recording of the press conference, please visit here. 

Attorney General Bonta's Remarks as Prepared for Delivery:

As the reality of a second Trump Administration takes hold, I know there is a great deal of fear, sadness, anxiety, and panic. 

I understand. 

I’m here today to reassure you that in California, progress will prevail. 

No matter who is in the White House, no matter who holds control of Congress, in California we will keep moving forward. 

In California, we will choose calm over chaos. 

Fact over fiction.

Belonging over blame.

Unity over division. 

“Us and we” over “I and me.” 

It’s why we’re the 5th largest economy in the world. Not in spite of our commitment to workers, consumers, and the environment, because of it. 

Because we’re the largest and most diverse state in the nation.

Because we believe in the power of inclusivity.

Because we believe in truth over lies. Hope over hate. Light over dark.

Because  we believe in looking forward.

It’s who we are in the Golden State. It’s in our DNA. Nothing and no one can change that. 

As Attorney General, I’ll continue to use the full force of the law and authority of this office to address injustice. 

To stand up for all people, especially those who have long been overlooked and undervalued.

To safeguard reproductive rights. 

And advocate for more housing — especially more affordable housing for lower and middle-income families just trying to get by.

I’ll continue to take on greedy corporate giants and fight for more affordable gas, groceries, and everything in between.  

I’ll continue to defend our world-renowned natural resources and protect them for generations to come. 

Continue to fight for clean water to drink and clean air to breathe.

Continue to crack down on illicit guns on our streets and get fentanyl out of our neighborhoods. 

Continue to fight for workers.

I’ll continue to protect, defend, and serve every single Californian. No matter your politics. 

I’m here to ensure every person — no matter how they look, how much money they make, where they’re from, who they love, how they identify, or how they pray — can pursue their version of the California Dream. 

A fair wage and good benefits.  

A safe and affordable place to live.  

Affordable and accessible health care. 

Good schools to send our kids to. 

Safe neighborhoods to raise our families. 

That’s my promise to you, no matter who is in the White House.  

We’ve been here before.

We lived through Trump 1.0. 

We know what he’s capable of. 

We know what plans he has in store. 

The silver lining is just that: we know. 

We know to take Trump at his word when he says he’ll roll back environmental protections, go after our immigrant and LGBTQ+ communities, attack our civil rights, and restrict access to essential reproductive care.

Which means, we won’t be flat-footed come January.

You can be sure that as California Attorney General, if Trump attacks your rights: I’ll be there. 

If Trump comes after your freedoms: I’ll be there. 

If Trump jeopardizes your safety and well-being: I’ll be there.

California DOJ did it before and we’ll do it again.  

During the last Trump Administration, California DOJ fought to stop illegal rollbacks and proposals that would’ve harmed the well-being, health, safety, and civil rights of our people and of people across the country. 

That would have caused irrevocable damage to our environment.

No matter who is in charge of the federal government…

No matter what the incoming Administration has in store… California will remain the steadfast beacon of progress it has long been.  

A constant, unwavering, immoveable force to be reckoned with.  

We’ll continue to be a check on overreach and push back on abuse of power. 

Be the antidote to dangerous, extremist, hateful vitriol.

Be the blueprint of progress for the nation to look to.

Remember: in moments of chaos in D.C., you can always look to California for calm resolve. 

California leaders across the state are ready to stand arm-in-arm. 

Governor Newsom and every single Constitutional Officer;  

Senator Padilla and Senator-elect Schiff;  

Democratic members of Congress; 

Pro Tem McGuire, Speaker Rivas, and the California Legislature; 

Mayors, supervisors, and city councilmembers from San Francisco to San Diego are ready to fight for our California values. 

For our people. For our environment.

For progress and justice.

And as necessary, we’re ready to take on the challenges of a second Trump Administration — together.

While a great deal of change is on the horizon…

California’s path to progress remains full steam ahead.

It may not always be linear. Progress so rarely is. 

It zigs and zags. Takes frustrating detours. Inches forward and backward and forward again. 

The detours and setbacks don’t define our progress.

Our commitment to forward momentum defines our progress. Defines us. 

It’s what we do next that will define us. 

If you’re feeling despondent today, remember that you’re not alone. 

In California, we’re not looking back. We’re not moving back. 

We’re California! We’ll meet any challenges head on and rise to the occasion.

As is so often said, as California goes, so goes the nation.

In the days and months and years to come, all eyes will look west. 

In California, they’ll see: we’re still moving forward.

Thank you. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, New Jersey Attorney General Mathew J. Platkin, and Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle A. Henry today led a coalition of 16 attorneys general in filing a multistate amicus brief in the Western District of Louisiana in support of the U.S. Department of Education’s 2024 Title IX Final Rule amidst several lawsuits filed by Republican states attorneys general and groups seeking to undermine the rule’s enhanced protections. The final rule restores strong protections against sexual harassment and assault and reinforces critical protections for LGBTQ+ students. Today’s announcement comes shortly after the California Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice its lawsuit against the Trump administration's Title IX Rule that severely weakened prohibitions against sex-based discrimination in light of the Biden administration’s issuance of the final rule. In today’s amicus brief, the multistate coalition stresses the importance of implementing the new rule nationwide to ensure that our schools operate free from sex discrimination.

“Title IX has been vital to providing safe and welcoming schools for all students since its enactment in 1972, and the Biden administration’s final rule enhances safeguards against discrimination and protections for all students,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today’s brief is a testament to our commitment to ensure an equal education free from discrimination. Conservative attacks on policies that protect students across the nation will not stand. I will continue to use all of my resources to fight for these important protections for all students.”

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 requires that students receive an educational environment free from discrimination based on sex, including sexual harassment and sexual violence. Following the Biden administration’s issuance of the final rule, several conservative attorneys general moved to quickly file lawsuits challenging the rule, and sought to stop the rule from going into effect on August 1, 2024. In today’s brief, the coalition states cite protecting students from discrimination on the basis of sex dramatically improves economic, psychological, health, employment, and educational outcomes for these individuals, yielding broad benefits without imposing significant costs on schools or compromising student privacy or safety. 

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the amicus brief is available here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that the California Department of Justice (DOJ) has ended monitoring of the Mojave Unified School District (District), concluding the four-year term of a 2020 stipulated judgment that addressed the District's policies and practices, including with regard to complaints of discrimination and retaliation. The settlement followed findings that the District failed to investigate a report that a principal threatened immigration-related consequences and retaliated against a student and his family for advocating for the student's legal rights. The terms of the 2020 judgment put in place reforms to protect students and ensure the District would improve its investigation and response process for complaints of discrimination and retaliation, revise policies, procedures, and practice, and staff training. The District has achieved substantial compliance with the judgment, and has agreed to implement an additional plan to significantly reduce disproportionalities in discipline for African-American students and students with disabilities, for a minimum of two years and provide DOJ with evidence of implementation two times a year.

“As the People's Attorney, I am committed to protecting students from discrimination and retaliation. The California Department of Justice and the Mojave Unified School District have worked together over the past four years to successfully implement the corrective actions set out in our 2020 stipulated judgment to address concerns regarding discrimination and retaliation,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “With the agreement announced today, Mojave Unified will take critical steps to ensure that no student is subject to discrimination in discipline and to provide additional mental health services for struggling students. My office will continue to work with the District to ensure the plan to reduce disproportionality in discipline is fully implemented, and we will continue to monitor over the next two years.”

 “Reflecting back to the start of the oversight, there were substantial changes needed to structure and maintain an environment that not only provided for, but addressed, the needs of all of our students,”said Dr. Aguirre, Mojave Unified School District Superintendent. “I thank all of our teachers, staff and administrators for their tremendous work and dedication to ensure that our practices and procedures are legally compliant, non-discriminatory and equitable. I am proud of their commitment to reviewing practices and procedures and for their reflection on what is fair and equitable in addressing and responding to our students’ needs. We could not have done so without the continuing support of our Governing Board members.”

In 2019, a DOJ investigation found that the District failed to properly investigate the family and student’s complaint of discrimination and retaliation. The investigation also found that the district violated state law with respect to search and seizure practices, special education identification, independent study and county community school placements, maintaining student record confidentiality, and the process for investigating and resolving complaints of discrimination and retaliation. DOJ and the District entered into a stipulated judgment that required significant reforms and a four-year monitoring period. 

At the conclusion of the judgment, the District achieved substantial compliance with all terms of the judgment by: 

• Improving procedures for handling student complaints, including ensuring that staff understand their obligations under the law to adequately respond to and track reports of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
• Ensuring alternative education programs meet legal requirements, following findings that the District provided only 10-15 minutes of support per week to below-grade-level students in independent study and that students placed in supervised suspension did not have a credentialed teacher for at least half a school year.
• Training staff in records management, as part of an effort to prevent the loss or removal of confidential student records.
• Addressing potentially inappropriate transfers to county community day schools, which, if not for expulsion, generally may only occur with the voluntary and informed consent of the student and family.
• Increasing the accessibility of special education evaluations, building on the District’s affirmative move to eliminate a screening process in order to help parents or guardians have a meaningful opportunity to engage in decisions about whether to evaluate their child for mental health-related disabilities.
• Reforming practices on searches and seizures, making sure there is reasonable suspicion, as legally required, before class-wide or grade-level-wide searches are conducted.
• Notifying families of the availability of translation and interpretation services, recognizing that meaningful access to education cannot be dependent on a student’s ability to translate between staff and a parent or guardian.
• Conducting a quarterly community advisory survey, supporting efforts to gage the efficacy of the independent study program and alternative education arrangements.
• Remedying grievances suffered by the individual harmed student, including by removing certain absences in the student’s record and providing 125 hours of free compensatory education and mental health services. 

The District has further committed to implementing a two-year suspension disproportionality reduction plan, and providing DOJ with evidence of implementation twice a year. The plan includes: 

• Continued comprehensive implementation of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), including re-entry protocol for students returning from out-of-school removals.
• Working with a consultant to provide guidance and support in the District’s PBIS implementation.
• Additional mental health and behavioral support staff at school sites.
• Training and implementation of restorative justice.
• Training for all staff and consistent teacher supports in PBIS, restorative justice, nondiscrimination, bias, conflict resolution and de-escalation, trauma, and social emotional learning curriculum.
• Tracking and monthly review of disaggregated PBIS and discipline data to identify trends and address root causes of discipline and disproportionality in discipline and implement necessary remedies. 

A copy of the agreement reached with the district is available here. A copy of the stipulated judgement is available here.