Federal Accountability

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today celebrated a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that​ blocks, for the time being, the deployment of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles. In issuing a partial administrative stay, the Ninth Circuit allows the first part of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s order barring the deployment of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles to remain in effect for now, while pausing the second part of the order returning federalized California National Guard troops to the Governor’s command. 

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision means that, come Monday, there will be no National Guard troops deployed in California. Let me repeat: For the first time in six months, there will be no military deployed on the streets of Los Angeles,” said Attorney General Bonta. “While this decision is not final, it is a gratifying and hard-fought step in the right direction. California did not ask to be a testing ground for the President’s militarized vision of America. There is no crisis to justify the National Guard’s continued presence, and we look forward to continuing to prove that in court.” 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 20 attorneys general in announcing a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration over its unlawful policy imposing a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions. H-1B visas allow U.S. employers to hire highly skilled foreign national workers in roles that require specialized skills, including as physicians, researchers, nurses, and other vital workers, to alleviate nationwide labor shortages. The new fee would create a costly barrier for employers, especially public sector and government employers, trying to fill these positions. In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition allege that the policy, which has been implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is a clear violation of the law because it imposes a massive fee outside of the bounds of what is authorized by Congress and contrary to Congress’s intent in establishing the H-1B program, bypasses required rulemaking procedures, and exceeds the authority granted to the executive branch under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

“As the world’s fourth largest economy, California knows that when skilled talent from around the world joins our workforce, it drives our state forward. President Trump’s illegal $100,000 H-1B visa fee creates unnecessary — and illegal — financial burdens on California public employers and other providers of vital services, exacerbating labor shortages in key sectors,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration thinks it can raise costs on a whim, but the law says otherwise. We are going to court to defend California’s residents and their access to the world-class universities, schools, and hospitals that make Californians proud to call this state home.”  

The H-1B visa program allows employers to petition for high-skilled foreign workers to temporarily fill positions in specialty occupations that require at least a bachelor’s degree. In petitioning for an H-1B worker, the employer must submit an application, certified by the U.S. Department of Labor, that employment of the H-1B worker will not negatively affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. Congress limits the number of H-1B visas available each year for most private employers, with the current cap set at 65,000, with an exemption of 20,000 for individuals with a master’s degree or higher. Since its inception, the H-1B visa program has been continually tailored by Congress to carry out its purpose of meeting employers’ labor needs, while protecting the interests of American workers to ensure that they are not wrongfully displaced. Congress has repeatedly enhanced enforcement, increased penalties, and legislated on fees for H-1B petitions to prevent misuse of the program. Congress has also adapted the program to ensure that it is especially beneficial to many government and non-profit organizations in fulfilling their public service missions, exempting them from the 65,000-person cap.

On September 19, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation ordering an unprecedented $100,000 fee for new H-1B visa petitions, undermining the very purpose of the H-1B visa by making it harder to address severe labor shortages in critical fields such as education and healthcare and ultimately worsening the staffing crisis. As implemented by DHS through a series of written documents, the policy affects any application filed after September 21, 2025, and grants the Secretary of Homeland Security broad discretion to determine which petitions are subject to the fee or for an exemption, raising concerns that the enforcement could be applied selectively against employers disfavored by the Trump Administration.  

The $100,000 visa fee is devastating for all states, including California, and threatens the quality of education, healthcare, and other core services available to our residents. For example, the United States faces a nationwide teacher shortage and in the 2024-2025 school year, 74% of school districts in the U.S. reported having trouble filling open positions, particularly in special education, physical sciences, ESL or bilingual education, and foreign languages. Educators are the third-largest occupation for H-1B visa holders, with nearly 30,000 educators on the visas, and nearly a thousand colleges and universities employ hundreds of H-1B personnel to support their research and education missions. Because K-12 schools, colleges, and universities are generally government or non-profit entities, they are incapable of absorbing an additional $100,000 for each H-1B hire. 

Hospitals and other healthcare centers also rely on the H-1B visa program to hire physicians, surgeons and nurses, often times in low-income and working-class neighborhoods. Nearly 17,000 H-1B visas went to workers in medicine and health occupations in the 2024 fiscal year, and half of those were physicians and surgeons. Without foreign-trained physicians, the United States is projecting a shortfall of 86,000 physicians by 2036. There will not be enough doctors to care for older adults, many of whom suffer increased rates of chronic disease and have other complex medical needs. In California, access to specialists and primary care providers in rural areas is already extremely limited and is projected to worsen as physicians retire and these communities struggle to attract new doctors. As a result of the fee, these institutions will be forced to operate with inadequate staffing or divert funding away from other important programs to cover expenses. 

In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition allege that the Trump Administration’s H-1B visa fee violates the APA and the U.S. Constitution. Fees associated with H-1B visas have long been established by DHS following the APA’s notice-and-comment process pursuant to congressional authority, which limits fees to the amount necessary to sustain the agency’s work. Typically, an employer filing an initial H-1B petition would expect to pay between $960 to $7,595 in regulatory and statutory fees. The Trump Administration’s $100,000 fee far exceeds the actual cost of processing H-1B petitions. By imposing this fee, the Administration is exceeding the fee-setting authority granted by Congress, which requires that fees be set based on the agency’s costs, rather than arbitrarily. Additionally, the Trump Administration issued the fee without going through the notice-and-comment process required by the APA and without considering the full range of impacts — especially on the provision of the critical services by government and nonprofit entities.

Attorney General Bonta and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell are leading the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin in filing the lawsuit. 

Please see here for a copy of the complaint. 

Court issues permanent injunction blocking Trump Administration from illegally shutting down the FEMA BRIC program

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a coalition of 20 states today secured a permanent injunction blocking the Trump Administration’s unlawful attempt to shut down the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) bipartisan Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. Since 2020, FEMA has made billions of dollars available under the BRIC program to prepare for and mitigate the risks from disasters before they happen. California is the largest beneficiary of this program and could receive over a billion dollars for future projects that FEMA had selected for grant funding before the program was unlawfully terminated. 

“FEMA’s BRIC program provides critical funding that helps communities prepare for disasters before they strike,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The BRIC program has bipartisan support. It saves taxpayers money. It improves our infrastructure, and it protects our communities. It’s a win-win. That’s why we went to court to protect this program when the Trump Administration attempted to unlawfully shut it down. Today, the court ruled in our favor, issuing a final ruling that ensures this funding continues to flow to climate resilience projects across our state.”

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed a law mandating that FEMA must protect communities through four interrelated functions – mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery. The BRIC program is at the core of FEMA’s mitigation efforts. BRIC projects are required to be cost-effective, and a recent study concluded that every dollar FEMA spends on mitigation saves an average of six dollars in post-disaster costs. The BRIC program supports often difficult-to-fund projects, such as constructing evacuation shelters and flood walls, safeguarding utility grids against wildfires, protecting wastewater and drinking water infrastructure, and fortifying bridges, roadways, and culverts.   

Over the past four years, FEMA has selected nearly 2,000 projects to receive roughly $4.5 billion in BRIC funding nationwide. In California, projects that have been awarded funding include: 

• A project in City of Rancho Palos Verdes to reduce geologic landslide movement that threatens most of the City’s residents and infrastructure, including a major arterial roadway that provides community and emergency access, sanitation sewer lines located along this roadway, electric and communication lines, potable water lines, and gas lines. Without this project, landslide movement will continue to threaten critical infrastructure, damage homes and property, and endanger lives. 
• A project in the City of Sacramento to mitigate flooding of five major interchanges, 3.9 miles of a major interstate highway, a runway at an airport, surface streets, 27,000 housing units, and more. Among other things, the project would have improved floodwall sections, improved levee sections, and relocated a pump station. 
• A project in Kern County to seismically retrofit the Kern Valley Healthcare District’s hospital that provides acute care and emergency medical services to a remote population in the mid-northern region of the Kern River Valley area. Unless seismically retrofitted, the hospital may soon need to close. This would force hundreds of thousands of Californians to seek services at hospitals over two hours away.

Today’s court decision affirms the coalition’s position that FEMA’s decision to abruptly terminate the BRIC program is in direct violation of Congress’s decision to fund it, and that the Executive Branch has no lawful authority to unilaterally refuse to spend funds appropriated by Congress. The judge also concluded that FEMA’s actions violate the Separation of Powers doctrine and the Administrative Procedure Act. The decision prevents FEMA from terminating the BRIC program and requires the restoration of these critical funds to the communities relying on them.   

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, the governors of Pennsylvania and Kentucky, and the District of Columbia.

Order returns command of remaining California National Guard troops in Los Angeles back to Governor 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ending the continued federalization and deployment of California National Guard troops in and around Los Angeles. After using isolated incidents of violence in June as a pretext to federalize the California National Guard, the Trump Administration implemented a months-long military occupation of the Los Angeles area, without any justification, and with no apparent end in sight. In an order today granting a preliminary injunction, the District Court said, “The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances. Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one.” The District Court stayed its order until December 15, 2025. 

“Once again, a court has firmly rejected the President’s attempt to make the National Guard a traveling national police force,” said Attorney General Bonta. “For more than five months, the Trump Administration has held California National Guard troops hostage as part of its political games. But the President is not king. And he cannot federalize the National Guard whenever, wherever, and for however long he wants, without justification. This is a good day for our democracy and the strength of the rule of law.” 

BACKGROUND  

Attorney General Bonta is committed to holding President Trump and his Administration accountable for overreaching their authority under the law and infringing on Californians’ constitutional rights in their efforts to transform America into a military state and National Guard troops into the President’s personal police force.  

• Initial Federalization of California National Guard: In June, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful orders to federalize the California National Guard and utilize National Guard troops for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. That same week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted California emergency relief, blocking the federalization order and returning command of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom; that order is currently stayed by the Ninth Circuit pending appeal. 
• Posse Comitatus Act Violations: In August, the Attorney General’s Office presented evidence of Posse Comitatus Act violations during a three-day trial before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Court subsequently granted a permanent injunction enjoining the Trump Administration from engaging in the same or similar activity in the future. The Court’s order is temporarily paused while the Ninth Circuit considers the federal government’s motion for a stay. 
• Deployment of California National Guard Troops to Oregon: In October, Attorney General Bonta secured a final ruling blocking the unlawful deployment of California National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon over the objections of both states’ governors. Over the course of a three day trial, attorneys for the California Department of Justice, Oregon Department of Justice, and Portland City Attorney’s Office presented evidence and argued in court that the federalization and deployment of the Oregon National Guard and the cross-state deployment of the California National Guard to Portland was beyond the authority of the federal government and violates the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
• Supporting Other States’ Cases: Attorney General Bonta has previously supported Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield’s and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb’s lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful deployment of National Guard troops to their cities. Most recently, Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Illinois in support of Illinois’s lawsuit challenging the federalization and deployment of the Illinois National Guard to Chicago.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Bonta today celebrated the decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts invalidating the Trump Administration’s action freezing the development of wind energy and declaring that action unlawful. Wind energy is a homegrown source of reliable, affordable energy that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, creates billions of dollars in economic activity and tax payments, and already supplies more than 10% of the country’s electricity. Today’s decision vacates the Trump Administration’s “Day One” executive memorandum, which imposed an indefinite moratorium on offshore and onshore wind energy projects and brings the lawsuit filed by the attorneys general lawsuit to a final resolution subject to appeal. 

“Today, we celebrate another victory against the Trump Administration. A court has agreed with California and our sister states nationwide: The Trump Administration’s attempt to thwart states’ efforts to make energy more clean, reliable, and affordable for our residents is unlawful and cannot stand,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration seems intent on raising costs on American families at every juncture — and California is equally committed to challenging every one of its illegal attempts to make life more expensive for Californians.”

BACKGROUND: 

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Memorandum that, among other things, indefinitely halted all federal approvals necessary for the development of offshore and onshore wind energy projects pending an indefinite federal review of wind leasing and permitting practices. Pursuant to this directive, federal agencies stopped all permitting and approval activities related to onshore or offshore wind energy projects. 

In addition to relying on onshore wind energy, in California, there are also currently five federal offshore wind leases off of California’s coast. Two are located offshore by Humboldt, while the remaining three are offshore from Morro Bay. These new developments are designed to bring substantial amounts of clean energy to the grid, including enough to power 1.6 million homes and potentially more. The President’s directive would have not only derailed the transition to clean energy but would have also threatened to increase consumer energy costs and jeopardized the creation of thousands of union jobs and the increased economic activity to the Humboldt area.

In May, Attorney General Bonta joined a multistate coalition in suing the Administration, alleging that the President’s memorandum would harm states’ efforts to secure reliable, diversified, and affordable sources of energy to meet the increasing demand for electricity and help reduce emissions of harmful air pollutants, meet clean energy goals, and address climate change. The directive also presented a looming threat to the states’ significant investments in wind industry infrastructure, supply chains, and workforce development — investments that already total billions of dollars.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta this week filed an amicus brief opposing the Trump Administration’s emergency appeal of a preliminary injunction order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia blocking the deployment of National Guard troops from D.C. and seven other states to D.C. Attorney General Bonta co-leads a coalition of 22 attorneys general and three governors in asserting that the deployment of National Guard troops without the consent of D.C. is unlawful, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. Domestic use of the military has long been recognized as antithetical to American values, and as California’s experience has shown, it is deeply damaging to state sovereignty, local economies, public safety, and troop morale. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to uphold the lower court’s orders and make clear that the Constitution prohibits this unjustified deployment of the National Guard to police our communities.  

“President Trump is engaging in a sweeping effort to deploy National Guard troops to police American cities. This unprecedented abuse of presidential authority is unlawful, and it’s putting our communities at risk,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California has experienced first-hand the harms resulting from a continuous military presence. People scared to leave their homes. Local businesses losing customers. Distrust of law enforcement that makes our communities less safe. It’s past time the President ends this farce and allows National Guard troops to return to the essential roles they are actually trained for.” 

The experience of California, as the first state to experience President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard without its Governor’s consent, serves as a warning of the harm caused by a continuous military presence in a state. For more than five months, federalized California National Guard troops have been deployed in California’s communities. During this time, the troops’ presence has stoked fear among Californians, causing the public to stay home, fail to report for work, and avoid areas where the military is deployed. The use of federalized National Guard troops has damaged trust between local law enforcement and the community, as troops have been tasked with civilian law enforcement and were widely present during immigration raids in the first few weeks of their deployment. These troops were diverted away from essential state functions, like fighting wildfires or engaging in fentanyl interdiction. For example, in June 2025, the majority of the California National Guard’s specialized fire crews were diverted from their wildfire-fighting task force in the midst of peak fire season and instead deployed into the streets of Los Angeles.  

With California’s experience as a lesson, as well as the more recent experiences of Oregon and Illinois, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that:

• Using the military for local law enforcement, as the President has done in the D.C., upsets the careful balance between civilian and military authority set forth in the Constitution.
• The deployment of National Guard troops infringes on the police powers reserved to States and localities. The Constitution establishes a federal government of limited, enumerated powers — general police power is not among them.  
• National Guard troops are not prepared to engage in civilian law enforcement, lacking training in criminal procedure, civil rights, criminal investigation, and de-escalation. This introduces complications and dangers to both the public and the troops engaging with them. 
• States need the National Guard to be available for vital natural disaster and security functions.

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

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) recent guidance illegally restricting eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP provides monthly food benefits to low-income families in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In California, SNAP, known as the CalFresh Program, is administered by the California Department of Social Services and is an essential hunger safety net to 5.5 million Californians each month. In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta, along with a coalition of 21 other attorneys general, argue that USDA's guidance for implementing the “Big Beautiful Bill” erroneously excludes certain lawfully residing non-citizens from SNAP eligibility, when they in fact are eligible when they become lawful permanent residents. The attorneys general raise the alarm that, without court intervention, the guidance will cause errors in eligibility determinations, which could deprive thousands of legal permanent residents of food assistance and lead to devastating financial penalties for states.

“The Trump Administration is effectively depriving thousands of lawful permanent residents of food assistance benefits that Congress intended be available,” said Attorney General Bonta. “SNAP recipients are still recovering from the whiplash President Trump and his Administration put them through in seeking to block November SNAP benefits during the government shutdown. No President has ever worked harder to deprive hungry Americans of access to basic nutrition. Ahead of the holidays, we’re not giving up the fight. We’re asking a court to step in and stop the USDA from applying its faulty new guidance before any further damage can be done.” 

Section 10108 of the Big Beautiful Bill amended the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to eliminate SNAP eligibility for individuals who entered the U.S. as refugees, were granted asylum, or were granted humanitarian parole based on this status at the time of their admission or parole. The Big Beautiful Bill did not, however, prohibit individuals who once held the status of refugees, asylees, or parolees from gaining eligibility for SNAP if and when they adjust their status to become lawful permanent residents. In a letter to USDA last week, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition explained that USDA’s guidance incorrectly list refugees, individuals granted asylum, parolees, and deportation withheld as “not eligible” rather than stating they could become eligible for SNAP if they become lawful permanent residents. USDA’s guidance also incorrectly conveys that humanitarian entrants must wait five years after becoming legal permanent residents to qualify for SNAP benefits when these individuals should be eligible immediately after obtaining legal permanent resident status.

USDA’s multiple errors and late-coming guidance have caused significant confusion for the states that have been tasked with implementing new substantive limitations on SNAP eligibility. As a result, there is serious risk of an increase in errors as states struggle to reconcile their obligations under the federal statue with faulty, misleading agency guidance that strays from the law. Although federal regulations require a 120-day exclusionary period following the application of a new implementing memorandum of a mandatory change, USDA incorrectly states that the exclusionary period ended on November 1, 2025, just one day after the guidance was issued on Friday, October 31, 2025. 

In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that USDA’s guidance is contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and should be vacated. They ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to bar USDA from applying the guidance and from using effective date for the purpose of calculating states’ error rates.

Attorney General Bonta has vigorously defended SNAP benefits from attacks by the Trump Administration. During the recent government shutdown, Attorney General Bonta sued USDA to force them to fund November SNAP benefits. Not one, but two federal district courts determined that the Trump Administration acted unlawfully. And when the Administration responded by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to pause one court’s order requiring USDA to pay full benefits, Attorney General Bonta vigorously challenged that request, which was ultimately withdrawn after the government reopened. The SNAP program is now fully funded through September 2026. 

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

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 17 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in Los Angeles Press Club, et al. v. Kristi Noem, et al. supporting journalists and protesters challenging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) dangerous use of force during protests in Los Angeles this past summer. During the largely peaceful demonstrations that arose in response to the Trump Administration's sweeping immigration raids, federal agents deployed tear gas, pepper balls, rubber bullets, and other dangerous weapons “indiscriminately and with surprising savagery,” injuring peaceful protesters, legal observers, and journalists in the process. In a brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the attorneys general argue that the tactics employed by these federal agents, including their inappropriate use of dangerous crowd control weapons, infringed on the First Amendment rights of protesters and the media, while also failing to accomplish their purported goal of lessening public unrest. 

“The Trump Administration used dangerous weapons against peaceful protesters and journalists in an attempt to discourage communities nationwide from reporting on and protesting the President’s aggressive immigration raids,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We will not allow the federal government’s bully tactics to undermine Americans’ First Amendment rights. My office will continue to oppose threats to free, safe speech wherever and whenever they arise.” 

A group composed of the Los Angeles Press Club, NewsGuild – Communications Workers of America, three journalists, two individual protesters, and a legal observer filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The group sought injunctive relief to prevent DHS’ use of crowd control weapons and techniques at protests opposing the Trump Administration’s recent immigration raids in California. The group argued that DHS’ practices not only unnecessarily endanger civilians’ safety but violate protesters’ First Amendment rights and multiple rulings by federal courts regarding appropriate enforcement practices. The District Court granted the Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. That order has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

In the amicus brief, the coalition of attorneys general urges the Ninth Circuit to uphold the District Court’s decision. The attorneys general argue that:

• Crowd control munitions should be deployed narrowly and when other options have been exhausted, as they can unnecessarily restrict First Amendment rights, cause serious injuries, and escalate rather than lessen unrest at protests;
• Law enforcement should proactively protect the press’ access to and safety at protests, rather than subjecting them to crowd control or attacks; and
• The DHS practices at issue in this case are not isolated, but instead part of a broader pattern of unlawful, nationwide actions by the federal government tied to the Trump Administration’s escalation of immigration enforcement.

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

Asks court to declare the restrictions unlawful and stop them from taking effect

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 19 attorneys general and two governors in suing the Trump Administration over funding restrictions it recently placed on the Continuum of Care (CoC) grant program. CoC is the federal government’s flagship program for funding affordable housing and other services for individuals at risk of and experiencing homelessness. Seeking to implement President Trump’s “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets” Executive Order, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced on November 13 that it would impose new restrictions on CoC funding. In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, the attorneys general argue that these restrictions are unlawful and would force tens of thousands formerly homeless individuals and their families back onto the street. The attorneys general are also filing a motion for a preliminary injunction because, among other things, they would experience irreparable harm if the restrictions remain in effect.

“Under both Democratic and Republican presidents, HUD’s Continuum of Care Program has helped states, local governments, and nonprofit organizations combat homelessness and provide safe, stable housing to our most vulnerable residents. This program has proven to be effective at getting Americans off the streets, yet the Trump Administration is now attempting to illegally slash its funding,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As a result, for the 47th time in 44 weeks, I’m taking President Trump to court. Those caring for our unhoused neighbors need the federal government’s continued support. Absent judicial intervention, the Trump Administration’s actions would only worsen the homelessness crisis.”

HUD’s new policies reverse the agency’s longstanding support for Housing First policies and fundamentally undermine the goal of providing dependable housing. Specifically, HUD’s new funding restrictions:

• Mandate that only 30 percent of CoC funds be used for permanent housing projects starting in 2026 — down from nearly 90 percent. Permanent housing projects are community-based initiatives designed to provide long-term, affordable housing to individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Permanent housing projects often provide supportive services to individuals with disabilities (including mental health and substance use issues) to allow them to live independently.
• Significantly change the point system used to award grants, which will threaten permanent housing and disadvantage services for people with mental disabilities and substance use disorders.
• Change the CoC funding competition rules to reduce Tier 1 funding from 90 percent to 30 percent. Tier 1 funding is essentially guaranteed funding for housing projects that satisfy certain requirements. This ensures stability for individuals and families living in CoC-funded housing or receiving CoC-funded services.
• Eliminate funding to applicants that acknowledge the existence of transgender and gender-diverse people.
• Discriminate against localities whose approach to homelessness differs from this Administration’s by deducting points for applicants if they happen to be located in jurisdictions that do not enforce certain policies this Administration favors, like bans on public camping. 

In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the restrictions are illegal in numerous ways. The restrictions:

• Violate the Administrative Procedure Act because they are contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and failed to observe the notice-and-comment procedure required by HUD’s own rules.
• Constitute ultra vires agency action because the Trump Administration lacks the statutory authority to impose the restrictions. No provision of HUD’s authorizing statutes allows the agency to impose these terms, and the statutes authorizing HUD to administer specific grant programs also preclude their imposition.
• Violate the Separation of Powers, since none of the restrictions were imposed by Congress. The President cannot directly and unilaterally amend or cancel appropriations Congress has duly enacted, nor can he order federal agencies to do so.
• Violate the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which is vested in Congress — not the President.
• Violate the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by requiring states to implement numerous policies favored by the Administration against their will, in order obtain federal funds.

States organize their own homelessness responses around the CoC program. California invests billions of dollars annually through programs including the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program, Homekey+, the Behavioral Health Services Act, CalAIM, and State Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. As part of this system, California provides funding to local governments, public housing authorities, and non-profits for housing, emergency shelter, and supportive services to reduce and end homelessness. California provides such funding to several CoC grantees, and some of which include state-funded capital or homeless services projects that leverage CoC-funded operating subsidies and services dollars to remain viable. 

In filing today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ) has backed down following a multistate lawsuit and committed to drop illegal conditions on Victims of Crimes Act (VOCA) Victim Assistance and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grant funding. Last month, Attorney General Bonta joined 20 attorneys general in challenging a new condition prohibiting recipients of various public safety and victim services grants from using funding to provide legal services to undocumented immigrants. Many of the organizations that receive these funds provide critical wraparound services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, human trafficking, and elder abuse — services that could be described as “legal” under U.S. DOJ’s vague definition — irrespective of an individual’s immigration status. With today’s stipulation and dismissal, Attorney General Bonta preserves California organizations’ ability to use the over $160 million in grant funding that the State received this year, and tens of millions of funding from prior years, to provide legal services to victims of crimes without unnecessary and unlawful restrictions. 

“Today’s decision marks another good outcome for California communities and the incredible organizations, programs, and services that support them,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration must stop playing games with peoples’ lives. Yanking funding from victims of crimes benefits no one. It only makes our communities less safe. While U.S. DOJ has backed down in the face of our litigation, these organizations did not deserve the whiplash of the past few months. California and our partner states will continue to fight back against President’s lawlessness and his callous disregard for our residents' safety and well-being.” 

In 2024, California subgrantees used victim assistance funds to serve nearly 1 million Californians, including supporting more than 100,000 victims and families on various civil legal matters. Among other things, this funding supports crisis intervention, counseling and advocacy, emergency shelter, and transitional housing assistance. It also supports law enforcement initiatives such as training officers on trauma-informed and victim-centered responses; developing specialized domestic violence or sexual assault units; and improving evidence collection in sexual assault and domestic violence cases. 

SECURING RELIEF FOR CALIFORNIANS 

Attorney General Bonta has filed 46 lawsuits against the Trump Administration in 43 weeks, with significant early victories and full and complete wins in litigation protecting California’s funding, programs, and services; safeguarding Californians’ rights and personal, private data; and preventing the dismantling of the federal government.   

Just last month, Attorney General Bonta secured a similar commitment from U.S. DOJ, following a separate multistate lawsuit, to drop its plan to impose illegal immigration enforcement conditions on over $1.3 billion in VOCA grants. He has also secured permanent injunctions blocking the Trump Administration’s effort to unlawfully impose immigration enforcement requirements on billions of dollars in annual transportation and homeland security grants and halting the Administration’s unlawful attempt to slash funding for a critical energy program. Attorney General Bonta also secured full and permanent relief for California schools in his lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s withholding of over $900 million in funding at the start of the school year and another $200 million in previously obligated and awarded funding for the academic recovery of students following the COVID-19 pandemic.  

While many cases are still ongoing, Attorney General Bonta has secured early relief in the vast majority of cases where he has sought and where a court has issued a ruling: blocking the Trump Administration’s attack on the Department of Health and Human Services; stopping its attempt to impose cruel new restrictions on access to public benefit programs like Head Start based on immigration status; preventing it from allowing ICE to comb through the private data of Medicaid recipients or from bullying states into turning over the data of SNAP recipients to aid in its mass deportation efforts; and safeguarding the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, among other decisions. 

You can find more on the California Department of Justice’s work to hold the federal government accountable here: https://oag.ca.gov/federal-accountability.