Federal Accountability

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

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

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

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

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

A copy of the amicus brief is available here.

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

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

BACKGROUND 

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

A copy of the decision is available here. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A copy of the complaint is available here.

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

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

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

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

The programs have been an incredible success. In their first year, the programs provided mental and behavioral health services to nearly 775,000 elementary and secondary students nationwide. Sampled projects showed real results: a 50% reduction in suicide risk at high-need schools, decreases in absenteeism and behavioral issues, and increases in positive student-staff engagement. Data also showed recruitment and retention efforts are working – in the first year of the programs, nearly 1,300 school mental health professionals were hired and 95% of those hired were retained. Importantly, these newly hired school-based mental health providers were able to create an 80% reduction in student wait time for services.

In California, 44 local education agencies, county offices of education, and universities are set to lose roughly $200 million. The grants have helped schools hire hundreds of psychologists, counselors, and social workers who have served thousands of students, including in the state’s most economically disadvantaged and rural communities. By all markers, these programs work.

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

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

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

A copy of the lawsuit is available here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision remanding consideration of the nationwide injunction to the lower courts in California and other states’ lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s unlawful executive order seeking to end the constitutional right to birthright citizenship. Less than 24 hours after the order was signed, Attorney General Bonta co-led a multistate coalition in suing President Trump, arguing that the President’s attempt to unilaterally end birthright citizenship violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 1401 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and should be immediately blocked from going into effect while litigation proceeds. In its decision, the Supreme Court announced a new standard for nationwide injunctions, sending consideration of the scope of the injunction back to the lower courts. The decision states that the executive order cannot go into effect for 30 days. 

“The rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this President’s anti-democratic agenda,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Supreme Court’s decision allows the lower courts to further consider the scope of the district court's nationwide injunction — which we believe is clearly necessary to provide full relief to the states. We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable, creating administrative chaos for California and others and harm to countless families across our country. The fight is far from over, and we will continue working to ensure this unlawful, anti-democratic executive order never has the chance to be implemented.”

BACKGROUND

From the beginning of our nation’s history, America followed the common law tradition that those born on U.S. soil are subject to its laws and are citizens by birth. Although the Supreme Court’s notorious decision in Dred Scott denied birthright citizenship to the descendants of enslaved people, the post-Civil War United States adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to protect citizenship for children born in the country. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause explicitly promises that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” 

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this constitutional right in 1898 when a San Francisco-born, Chinese American man was denied entry back into the U.S. after visiting relatives in China on the grounds that he was not a citizen. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court established that children born in the U.S., including those born to immigrants, could not be denied citizenship. 

Within hours of taking office, President Trump issued an executive order disregarding the U.S. Constitution and this long-established precedent. The order directs federal agencies to prospectively deny the citizenship rights of American-born children whose parents are not lawful permanent residents or U.S. citizens. The order instructs the Social Security Administration and Department of State, respectively, to cease issuing social security numbers and U.S. passports to these children, and directs all federal agencies to treat these children as ineligible for any privilege, right, or benefit that is reserved by law to individuals who are U.S. citizens.

If allowed to stand, the order would strip tens of thousands of children born each year of their ability to fully and fairly be a part of American society as rightful citizens, with all the benefits and privileges. These children would lose their most basic rights and be forced to live under the threat of deportation. They would lose eligibility for a wide range of federal benefits programs. They would lose their ability obtain a Social Security number and, as they age, to work lawfully. And they would lose their right to vote, serve on juries, and run for certain offices.  

The executive order would also directly harm California and other states, causing them to risk federal funding for vital programs that they administer, such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program; these programs are conditioned on the citizenship and immigration status of the children they serve. In addition, states would be required — on little notice and at considerable expense — to begin modifying their operation and administration of benefits programs to account for this change.

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

Case challenging Trump Administration’s unlawful deployment of federalized National Guard and Marines in California moves forward 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today responded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's order last night in California’s lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's unlawful federalization of the California National Guard and deployment of federalized National Guard troops and Marines for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles. The court’s order (1) grants the state’s request for expedited discovery as to potential Posse Comitatus Act violations; and (2) denies the federal government’s request to transfer the case to the Central District of California. 

“President Trump continues to needlessly – and unlawfully – pull California National Guard servicemembers off of counterdrug taskforces and wildfire crews for the singular purpose of furthering his political agenda,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As he has done time and again, President Trump is choosing the path that makes our communities less safe instead of more. We need to know more about what the troops' orders are and how they are being deployed in Los Angeles communities. The court’s order allows us to gather those facts and continue to make our case in court. We will not let the President’s unprecedented overreach of executive authority go unchecked.”

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

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement on a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington blocking the Trump Administration from unlawfully withholding billions of dollars in funding approved by bipartisan majorities in Congress for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.  

“It is no secret that the Trump Administration is beholden to the fossil fuel agenda. The administration cannot dismiss programs illegally, like the bipartisan Electric Vehicle Infrastructure formula program, just so that the President’s Big Oil friends can continue basking in record-breaking profits,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We are pleased with today’s order blocking the Administration’s unconstitutional attempt to do so, and California looks forward to continuing to vigorously defend itself from this executive branch overreach.” 

Background

In 2021, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. One provision of the IIJA appropriated $5 billion for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) formula program to facilitate a national network of electric vehicle charging infrastructure across the states, making clean cars accessible and convenient for more consumers and markets. 

On Day One of his administration, President Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to immediately stop releasing certain funds appropriated through the IIJA, including $5 billion that Congress appropriated for electric vehicle charging stations under NEVI. Following that directive, the Federal Highway Administration effectively halted the NEVI program by, among other things, illegally withholding billions in funds that Congress had directed to the states for building EV infrastructure.

Last month, Attorney General Bonta, alongside California Governor Gavin Newsom, the California Department of Transportation, and the California Energy Commission, co-led a coalition of 17 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration to ensure the proper flow of NEVI funds. Today’s court order blocks the Trump Administration’s action while the case continues through litigation.  

A copy of the court order can be found here.

Since January, the Trump Administration has baselessly relied on a single subclause buried deep in federal regulations to slash tens of billions in previously awarded grant funding

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today sued the Trump Administration over its improper use of a single subclause buried in federal regulations promulgated by the Office of Management of Budget (OMB) to terminate tens of billions of dollars in grant funding to the states. Since taking office, the Trump Administration has engaged in a nationwide slash-and-burn campaign, unlawfully invoking 2 C.F.R. § 200.340(a)(4) (“the Clause”) to justify the termination of tens of billions of dollars in critical federal funding appropriated by Congress and awarded to the states. The Trump Administration has claimed that five words in the Clause — “no longer effectuates . . . agency priorities” — provide federal agencies with virtually unfettered authority to withhold funding any time they no longer wish to support the programs for which Congress has appropriated funding. In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and a multistate coalition argue that the Administration is misconstruing the Clause and that the Clause, properly read, does not allow for grant terminations based on agency priorities that were set or changed only after a grant was originally awarded. 

“The Trump Administration has recklessly and chaotically slashed federal grant funding that is intended to prevent crime, rebuild our roads, develop technology for the future, and everything in between,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This hack job has been done under the flimsy premise of ‘changed agency priorities’ — even when this funding has been previously appropriated by Congress and awarded to the states. For federal funding to work, the states that receive that funding need to be able to plan ahead, make investments, and be confident that this funding will not be terminated on a whim. We’re asking the court to block the Trump Administration’s unlawful invocation of this clause as a sweeping justification for the termination of grant funding.”

With the stroke of a pen, federal agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Justice to the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of Labor have deprived California and other states of essential funding they rely on to combat violent crime, prevent terrorist attacks, educate students with special needs, respond to natural disasters, protect clean drinking water, conduct life-saving medical and scientific research, upgrade crumbling transportation infrastructure, and much more. Federal agencies have done all of this without advance notice, without explanation to the state recipients, and in direct contravention of the will of Congress.    

In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that federal agencies’ invocation of the Clause to terminate grant funding runs counter to OMB’s own interpretation of its own regulations. When OMB first promulgated the Clause in 2020, it made clear that the language granted federal agencies only limited authority to terminate grants. Indeed, the coalition is not aware of a single instance prior to January 2025 in which a federal agency relied on the Clause to terminate a grant on the grounds that agency priorities had changed after the award of the grant. Since January 2025, however, federal agencies across the Trump Administration have asserted that the Clause provides them with a blank check to terminate grants already awarded to states based on newly identified agency priorities — even when those priorities conflict with the priorities identified by Congress or by the agency at the time of the grant award. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition today ask the District Court to declare that the Clause and the Trump Administration’s regulations implementing the Clause do not on their own provide sufficient grounds to terminate awards; vacate the Trump Administration’s decision to invoke the Clause as grounds for terminating grants based on a change in agency priorities; and permanently bar the Trump Administration from invoking the Clause in the future.   

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin, as well as the state of Pennsylvania, in filing the lawsuit. 

A copy of the lawsuit is available here. 

Public media is an essential resource — especially for rural communities in emergency situations  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined 23 attorneys general in submitting an amicus brief supporting NPR (National Public Radio) and PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) in their challenge to the Trump Administration directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to withhold federal funding from NPR and PBS. California public broadcasting companies received over $57 million in grants and allocations from CPB last year, much of which is distributed through NPR and PBS. In the brief, the attorneys general highlight the important role of public media in providing millions of Americans — especially rural, remote, and Tribal communities — with essential state and nationwide news and emergency notifications. Especially as the state experiences an increase in wildfires, Californians rely on public radio to receive vital information including evacuation orders.  

“Public media serves all Americans, regardless of their ability to pay. In many rural communities, public radio stations are often the main or only source for local news and regularly partner with federal, state, and local authorities to provide lifesaving emergency communications, including early earthquake warnings and fire evacuation orders,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Without federal funding, rural areas of the country would lose this critical communication lifeline. Particularly amid an increase in natural disasters, leaving a whole swath of Americans without access to timely information is dangerous and unacceptable.”

Public radio and television station alerts and reporting on emergency situations are often a lifeline for audiences throughout the country. Public broadcasters transmit emergency alerts to areas where there is little or no reliable internet or cellular service or when this service is disrupted. Public radio and television stations often have hardened and resilient infrastructure that allows them to continue broadcasting during emergency situations that may knock out power or other communications resources. Loss of federal funding to NPR and PBS would result in impacts to state and local authorities who frequently partner with public broadcasters; authorities would lose access to infrastructure they rely on to communicate immediate and life-saving emergency alerts to the public. Because this infrastructure cannot be quickly, easily, or inexpensively replaced, Americans nationwide — and particularly those in rural and remote areas — would experience real harm. 

Public media is particularly critical in rural and Tribal areas where news, educational programming, and emergency alerts are significantly more limited. Rural areas are more vulnerable to the catastrophic effects of weather disasters and tend to not have the same access to reliable, high-speed internet as their urban counterparts. 

In California, federal funding cuts to public media will disproportionately affect small and rural media stations, which are primarily funded by CPB. Approximately 40% of CPB grantees are considered rural — and in recent years CPB has prioritized resources to remote stations, which face unique challenges and higher costs than urban stations to reach remote sparsely populated areas. Whereas most urban stations have other funding sources, CPB funds can account for up to 60% of a rural station’s funding, meaning that reduction or elimination of funding from CPB would have the most negative impact on stations serving these communities. 

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

A copy of the brief can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement following a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granting the federal government’s motion for a stay pending appeal in Newsom v. Trump. The court granted the federal government's motion, staying the district court’s temporary restraining order during the federal government's appeal. The temporary restraining order blocked the Trump Administration’s use of the federalized California National Guard to patrol our communities and engage in other law enforcement activity by returning control of the California National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom.

“While it is disappointing that our temporary restraining order has been stayed pending the federal government’s appeal, this case is far from over,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration far overreached its authority with its unprecedented and unlawful federalization of the California National Guard and deployment of military troops into our communities. As senior military leaders serving in administrations from JFK to Obama have affirmed, the use of the military on U.S. soil should be ‘rare, serious, and legally clear.’ That is not the case in Los Angeles where our state and local law enforcement officers responded effectively to isolated episodes of violence at otherwise peaceful protests and the President deliberately sought to create the very chaos and crises he claimed to be addressing. While the court did not provide immediate relief for Angelenos today, we remain confident in our arguments and will continue the fight.” 

A copy of the decision is available here.