Federal Accountability

Joins multistate coalition opposing U.S. DOJ subpoena to access private medical records

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced joining a coalition of 15 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The brief urges the court to limit the U.S. Department of Justice’s (U.S. DOJ) subpoena targeting the release of private medical records, including patient records, related to gender-affirming care at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP).

“Subpoenas targeting the medical records of transgender youth are an assault on privacy,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Healthcare decisions should be between patients, families, and doctors — not in the hands of the government. That’s why I am standing with a coalition of attorneys general, urging the court to quash or limit U.S. DOJ’s subpoena of documents relating to medically necessary, gender-affirming care.”

Since taking office, the Trump Administration has attempted to end lawful medical care that it disfavors. On day one, President Trump issued an Executive Order declaring gender identity a “false” idea. A week later, the President issued another Executive Order attempting to strip federal funding from institutions that provide lifesaving gender-affirming care for young people under the age of 19, with the ultimate goal of ending all gender-affirming care for adolescents. In April, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo directing U.S. DOJ to investigate healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies that engage in gender-affirming care. 

On June 12, U.S. DOJ sent CHOP an administrative subpoena, seeking information and documents relating to the hospital’s provision of gender-affirming care. This subpoena demands sensitive medical records and personally identifying information about adolescent patients and their families. For example, U.S. DOJ is seeking patient names, dates of birth, home addresses, and social security numbers. 

In their brief, the attorneys general urge the court to limit U.S. DOJ’s subpoena. They argue that:

• The federal government is clearly seeking to intimidate medical providers from offering critical and medically necessary care to transgender youth, even in states like California where such care is legal and protected.
• As part of this subpoena request, U.S. DOJ is interpreting the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) as outlawing medical providers from prescribing FDA approved medications to their patients for off label use. If U.S. DOJ’s interpretation of the FDCA were accepted, entire fields of medicine could see their practitioners at risk of criminal conviction merely for offering routine, evidence-based treatments. As the amicus brief points out, some studies estimate that as much as 80% of drugs prescribed for children are prescribed for off label uses. 

The states submitting the brief have enacted their own laws, policies, and protections, for transgender residents, including transgender youth under the age of 19. California has enacted laws recognizing the right to access gender-affirming care and shielding people who access or provide gender-affirming care from civil or criminal penalties by out-of-state jurisdictions. 

Earlier this month, Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief opposing U.S. DOJ’s subpoena for patient records related to gender affirming care at Boston Children’s Hospital. California continues its efforts to stand firmly in support of healthcare policies that respect the dignity and rights of all people.

Joining Attorney General Bonta in submitting the amicus brief are the attorneys general of Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. 

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition 23 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Donald J. Trump v. Lisa D. Cook, a case concerning President Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her position on the Federal Reserve Board. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is the primary entity that oversees the Federal Reserve System, the U.S. central bank, which is tasked with promoting financial system stability, supervising and regulating financial institutions, and promoting consumer protection. In the brief, the attorneys general ask the U.S. Supreme Court to allow Governor Cook to remain in her post while litigation in the case proceeds, citing concerns that given the Federal Reserve’s responsibilities, increased institutional uncertainty from the fallout of Governor Cook’s removal would cause downstream economic harms on states.

“The Federal Reserve Board serves all Americans by promoting the health and stability of the U.S. economy and financial system. By continuing his attempt to remove Governor Lisa Cook — one of seven essential board members — President Trump is not only undermining the Board’s independence but also threatening to throw an institution that safeguards California’s economy into chaos,” said Attorney General Bonta. “From designing their state budgets to taking out a mortgage, the State of California and its people depend on stability, independence, and good governance at the Federal Reserve. I urge the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the preliminary injunction that has allowed Governor Cook to continue her work on the Board of Governors while litigation proceeds.”

In August 2025, President Trump attempted to remove Lisa Cook from the Board of Governors “for cause.” The purported “cause” was an allegation that Governor Cook had defrauded mortgage lenders by claiming two primary residences to receive lower interest rates in 2021, prior to her appointment to the Federal Reserve. The U.S. Department of Justice has opened an investigation into the matter, but the allegations have not been substantiated to date. For the Federal Reserve Board to function as Congress intended, dismissals of governors for cause must mean something more specific than an unreviewable reason left entirely to the President’s discretion. Otherwise, “for cause” then means “for whatever reason the President decides,” which is nothing more than termination at the President’s discretion because he does not like the person or the decisions the board is making — an approach to governing the U.S. financial system that Congress has rejected. Despite the lack of evidence, a premature investigation, and a District Court ruling that Governor Cook should stay in her post while the investigation proceeds, President Trump is again attempting to move forward with the removal of Governor Cook. 

In the brief, the attorneys general argue that allowing President Trump to immediately remove Governor Cook from the Board of Governors would undermine the judiciary's important role in ensuring the President acts within his authority. Concerningly, given the Federal Reserve Board’s critical role in promoting the stability of the financial system, Governor Cook’s sudden remove is expected to likely result in higher and more volatile inflation, unemployment, and market conditions that may harm states by: 

• Undermining the projections used to craft state budgets; 
• Increasing costs to provide state services; and 
• Increasing costs for state services to support people who are unemployed. 

Joining Attorney General Bonta in filing the amicus brief are the attorneys general from Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.  

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, alongside a multistate coalition, announced securing a preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Department of Education (Department) from unlawfully discontinuing grants awarded through Congressionally-established school-based mental health grant programs, including millions of dollars awarded to 21 local education agencies and universities in California. The preliminary injunction, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, blocks the Trump Administration from implementing its discontinuation decisions against nearly 50 grantees in plaintiff states, while the lawsuit proceeds. The court’s order also prevents the Trump Administration from reinstituting the discontinuation decisions based on the same or similar reasons against those nearly 50 grantees.

On October 21, U.S. District Court Judge Kymberly Evanson rejected the Department’s motion to dismiss the case. In the court’s decision issuing the preliminary injunction, the court held that the States will likely succeed in showing that the Department acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, violating the Administrative Procedure Act. The court concluded that the Department did not explain its discontinuation decisions and did not consider the valuable time and resources grantees invested in their grant projects. The court limited the injunction to grantees that had submitted declarations to the court explaining how they’d been harmed by the Department’s discontinuation notices.

“The court’s decision requires the Trump Administration’s Department of Education to provide thousands of students in our state a fair shot at accessing crucial mental health services that support their success and wellbeing, while our litigation continues,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Instead of fulfilling its mission of promoting educational excellence and equity for all students, the Department of Education is using baseless and unlawful excuses to rip funding from projects that provide necessary mental health services — especially in our low-income and rural communities. The court’s ruling brings us one step closer to ensuring the Department of Education follows the law when it makes mental health grant award decisions in the future.”

BACKGROUND:

On June 30, 2025, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 16 states in suing the Trump Administration’s Department of Education over its unlawful decision to discontinue grants awarded through Congressionally-established school-based mental health grant programs: the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program and the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program. These grants support students in high-need, low-income, and rural schools, and the mental health services are critical to students’ well-being, safety, and academic success. The lawsuit seeks injunctive and declaratory relief requiring the Department to follow the law and determine whether to continue to award funding based on the grantees’ performance, and to prevent the Department from unlawfully reallocating the funding to other grantees. 

The attempted discontinuances targeted a bipartisan act of Congress that appropriated $1 billion for mental health supports in schools after the tragic deaths of 19 students and 2 teachers during a mass school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. During the first year of funding, grantees served nearly 775,000 students and hired nearly 1,300 school mental health professionals, according to the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). NASP also found a 50% reduction in suicide risk at high-need schools, decreases in absenteeism and behavioral issues, and increases in positive student-staff engagement based on data from sampled programs.

Despite the success of these mental health programs, on or about April 29, 2025, the Department sent boilerplate notices to 44 grantees in California, including local education agencies and institutes of higher education, claiming that the grantees’ projects 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 threatening projects years in the making. However, in the press, the Trump Administration implied 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. 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 a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause and guarantee of Separation of Powers.

A copy of order is available here. 

45th lawsuit by Attorney General Bonta against Trump Administration urges court to immediately restore SNAP funding relied upon by 42 million Americans, including 5.5 million Californians

SACRAMENTO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta is co-leading a coalition of 23 attorneys general and three governors in filing a lawsuit today against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its Secretary Brooke Rollins for indefinitely suspending Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during the federal government shutdown. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the lawsuit points out that USDA has funds available to it that are sufficient to cover all or a large portion of November SNAP benefits, and that suspending benefits — when USDA is sitting on billions of dollars in contingency funds — is both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The coalition is also filing a request for a temporary restraining order and asking the court to block the USDA’s suspension order because of the irreparable harm their residents are facing.

“Let’s be clear about what’s happening: For the first time ever, SNAP benefits will not be available to the millions of low-income individuals who depend on them to put food on the table,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “November SNAP benefits can and must be provided, even with the government shutdown. USDA not only has authority to use contingency funds, it has a legal duty to spend all available dollars to fund SNAP benefits. The Trump Administration, however, has chosen instead to play politics with this essential safety net that so many people depend on — including 5.5 million individuals in California alone. With the holidays around the corner, we are seeing costs for groceries continue to increase and food banks facing unprecedented demand. We are taking a stand because families will experience hunger and malnutrition if the Trump Administration gets its way.” 

“While Donald Trump parades around the world trying to repair the economic damage he's done with his incompetence, he's denying food to millions of Americans who will go hungry next month,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “It's cruel and speaks to his basic lack of humanity. He doesn't care about the people of this country, only himself."

On September 30, USDA issued a Lapse of Funding Plan, in which it acknowledged that Congress intended for SNAP operations to continue during a government shutdown and that it has “multi-year contingency funds” on hand for just that eventuality. As of late September, that contingency fund stood at approximately $6 billion. On October 10, after the shutdown began, USDA sent a letter to state agencies directing them to put an indefinite hold on November benefits while it began “the process of fact finding and information gathering to be prepared in case a contingency plan must be implemented.” USDA provided no further guidance for two weeks, prompting Attorney General Bonta and a coalition of attorneys general to demand an update on USDA’s contingency plan. The same day, October 24, USDA issued a decision formally suspending SNAP benefits indefinitely. And, in a separate memo, it wrote that USDA cannot legally use the $6 billion contingency fund to provide SNAP benefits — the opposite of what it said previously. It also said it could not use that money because it might be needed for disaster relief in the event of a future hurricane or tornado, even though the agency has previously said it could use contingency funds to cover SNAP benefits during a funding lapse.

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 is known as the CalFresh Program and is administered by the California Department of Social Services. SNAP provides an essential hunger safety net to an average of 5.5 million Californians per month. 63.2% of SNAP participants in California are children or elderly. Further, many veterans — nearly 85,000 in California in recent years — live in households that depend on SNAP for their nutrition needs.

In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that:

• Under federal law, USDA has an obligation to furnish SNAP benefits. The agency cannot simply suspend all benefits indefinitely, while refusing to spend billions in contingency funds that can — and must — be used to fund SNAP benefits for eligible households. This refusal is contrary to law and violates the APA. 
• USDA has historically funded SNAP benefits during prior lapses in appropriations.  In addition, USDA has previously — in prior years and as recently as last month — taken the position that contingency funds are available to fund benefits during shortfalls. In doing an about face and suspending November SNAP benefits without adequately considering the impacts on states, among other things, the agency violated the APA’s requirement to engage in reasoned decision-making.

The lawsuit is co-led by Attorney General Bonta, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. They are joined by the attorneys general of Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, 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.

A copy of the lawsuit is available here. The request for a temporary restraining order is available here.

California relies on homeland security funding to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism and other emergencies  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a multistate coalition in filing an amended complaint seeking to block the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) latest attempt to withhold homeland security funding by imposing an unreasonable new condition for states to receive Emergency Management Performance Grant funds. On September 29, the coalition filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration after they received grants that were significantly lower than anticipated — without justification and seemingly to punish the states for their sovereign decision to use their law enforcement resources to protect public safety rather than assist in federal immigration enforcement. The next day, the coalition secured a temporary court order halting the illegal diversion of this funding toward states with policies that the President prefers. In a new filing, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition are amending that lawsuit to include DHS’s attempt to impose an illegal new condition requiring states to certify to their current populations — instead of relying on census data—making an impossible ask for data the states do not have in order to receive critical emergency management funding.

“The Trump Administration continues to throw things at the wall to see what sticks; the answer is: none of it. If the President wants to stop losing in court, he should stop breaking the law, not wasting our time with yet another  ridiculous effort to withhold homeland security funding by imposing an impossible — and obviously illegal — new condition,” said Attorney General Bonta “DHS wants us to certify to population information that only DHS has, on a timeline that lacks basic commonsense. This is part and parcel for an Administration that is more show than substance, and that has openly declared that it does not want to give a dollar of federal funding to states with policies it disagrees with, regardless of what is required by the Constitution and the law. I urge the court to require FEMA to distribute homeland-security funding without this illegal new condition.” 

On January 20, 2025, his first day in office, President Trump directed DHS to “ensure that so-called ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions do not receive access to Federal funds.” The President deemed certain states and jurisdictions in “lawless insurrection,” despite the fact that courts have upheld laws like California’s SB 54 as constitutional and consistent with federal immigration law and firmly rebuked the Trump Administration’s attempts to condition federal funds on assistance with immigration enforcement. Just last month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a permanent injunction in California’s lawsuit blocking the Trump Administration’s effort to unlawfully impose immigration enforcement requirements on billions of dollars in annual DHS grants. 

Soon after, on Saturday, September 27, FEMA issued award notifications for its single largest grant program — the Homeland Security Grant Program, which totals approximately $1 billion in funds annually. Consistent with federal law, FEMA had previously issued notices of funding opportunity preliminarily allocating the funding among state recipients based on each jurisdiction’s “relative threat, vulnerability, and consequences from acts of terrorism.” According to that notice, California expected to receive approximately $165 million in grant funding. However, when California received the grant notification, the award was only $110 million, reflecting a 33% reduction. Some states saw even sharper cuts: Illinois received a 69% reduction in funding, and New York received a 79% reduction. At the same time, many other states saw increases to their allocation upwards of 100%.  

A defining factor in this reallocation appears to be whether a state was a so-called “sanctuary” jurisdiction or not. In short, the current Administration appears to be taking money from its perceived “enemies” and reallocating it to its “friends.”  DHS also required states for the first time, to certify to their own populations — rather than DHS simply using census data to make that determination — and to identify a methodology to exclude “individuals that have been removed from the State pursuant to the immigration laws of the United States.” The Trump Administration is well aware that these real-time population figures are impossible to provide, and are made doubly impossible by the demand to incorporate information about deportations that DHS alone holds.

Attorney General Bonta and a coalition quickly challenged and secured a temporary restraining order blocking the illegal diversion of this funding to states with policies that the Trump Administration agrees with. In an amended complaint filed today, the coalition argue that DHS’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and are ultra vires — and as such should be declared unlawful and set aside. The coalition asks the court to amend the awards to remove the illegal population certification condition and provide the coalition states with the full funding to protect their residents they are entitled to under the law. 

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the Governor of Pennsylvania.

A copy of the amended complaint can be found here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 23 attorneys general in sending a letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins, expressing grave concerns about a potential lapse in issuance of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for the month of November. On October 10, 2025, state agencies received a letter from the USDA (1) stating that “if the current lapse in appropriations continues, there will be insufficient funds to pay full November SNAP benefits for approximately 42 million individuals across the Nation”; (2) directing “States to hold their November issuance files and delay transmission to State EBT vendors until further notice,” including “on-going SNAP benefits and daily files”; (3) explaining that it had just “begun the process of fact finding and information gathering to be prepared in case a contingency plan must be implemented.” Two weeks later, the USDA has not provided the states with an update on that contingency plan. In today’s letter, and with no end in sight to the current government shutdown, the attorneys general demand clarity and additional information on how USDA plans to proceed.

“Forty-two million individuals in the United States, including approximately 5.5 million Californians, use SNAP benefits to feed themselves and their families. In yet another new low, those critical benefits are now at risk thanks to the Trump Administration. Every American — Democrat, Republican, and Independent — should be outraged,” said Attorney General Bonta. “When will the President actually focus on ending the government shutdown? Day after day, his attention seems to be directed elsewhere, most recently toward his new $250 million White House ballroom. Today, my fellow attorneys general and I are calling on his U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide us with answers. SNAP benefits should never be an afterthought — protecting the families who rely on these benefits to keep food on the table must be a priority.” 

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 is known as the CalFresh Program and is administered by the California Department of Social Services. 63.2% of SNAP participants in California are children or elderly. On October 20, in response to the USDA’s October 10 letter, the California Department of Social Services sent a letter to all counties in the state, informing them of the need to prepare for a delay of SNAP benefits for the month of November.

In today’s letter to Secretary Rollins, the attorneys general underscore that:

• The legal basis for, and implications of, USDA’s directive are unclear. In the October 10 letter, USDA prohibited states like California from sending already calculated November allotments to EBT vendors for processing. While USDA does have some authority to reduce SNAP benefits, or even suspend or cancel them under certain circumstances, the October 10 letter does not indicate that any of the legal requirements to do so have been met. In addition, USDA appears to have at least $6 billion (and perhaps more) in SNAP contingency reserve funds that Congress appropriated for emergency situations like this. The attorneys general argue the federal government should use those funds to continue providing SNAP benefits rather than direct states to suspend already-calculated allotments. USDA also has access to Section 32 funds that could also be used to provide SNAP benefits during the ongoing shutdown.
• USDA’s directive to “hold” November files will harm millions of Americans. Those affected by USDA’s unexplained “hold” include some of our Nation’s most vulnerable populations. In Fiscal Year 2023, children — from babies to 17 years old — comprised nearly 39% of SNAP recipients, and adults aged 60 and old made up nearly 20%. Further, a discouraging number of veterans — nearly 84,931 in California in recent years — live in households that depend on SNAP for their nutrition needs.
• States and SNAP recipients need additional information and clarity about how USDA plans to proceed. Specifically, the attorneys general ask USDA to answer the following questions by October 27, 2025: 
• Does USDA/the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) have contingency funds left over from prior Congressional appropriations? If so, what is the total of those contingency funds?
• Does USDA/FNS have access to any other source(s) of available funds to pay benefits, including but not limited to Section 32 funds?  
• Does USDA/FNS intend to use such funds to furnish SNAP benefits, even at a reduced level? If not, why not? And if so, how does the agency plan to execute that plan, and when would States be expected to send their benefit issuance files?
• Assuming USDA/FNS has contingency funds, on what grounds did the agency direct States to “hold” November files, rather than reducing allotments consistent with available funds?
• Should States treat the October 10 letter a “suspension” of benefits, a “cancellation” of benefits under 7 C.F.R. § 271.7, or neither? 

Joining Attorney General Bonta in sending today’s letter are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Hawai'i, Connecticut, Illinois, Delaware, Maine, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Michigan, New York, Minnesota, North Carolina, Nevada, Oregon, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Washington.

A copy of the letter can be found here. 

Federal law invoked by Trump Administration, IEEPA, makes no mention of “tariffs,” “duties,” or even “customs,” “taxes,” or “imposts.”  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, opposing the Trump Administration’s persistent efforts to impose illegal tariffs that have sent shockwaves and uncertainty through global economies, markets, and consumers. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta argues that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the President has used as a vehicle to levy the tariffs in question, does not delegate any authority to the President to impose tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump is scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, November 5, 2025. President Trump’s illegal tariffs are causing uncertainty and unpredictability, which is bad for business, bad for the economy, and as the fourth largest economy in the world, bad for California. In April, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs without the consent of Congress. 

“President Trump’s illegal tariffs impact businesses, consumers, and states across the nation — and they are illegal. Any attempt by the Trump Administration to interpret IEEPA as giving it the power to impose tariffs is a feat of mental gymnastics,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “No matter how you spin it, no matter what definitions the Administration reaches for, 2 + 2 does not equal 10. Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes — if Congress had intended to grant the President such extraordinary authority, it would have said so. Today, California asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

“Trump’s illegal tariffs are punishing American families and small businesses. It’s not policy or business acumen — it’s betrayal and grift. Americans are struggling to put food on their tables, and Trump’s response is to send $20 billion in taxpayer money to Argentina and leave our farmers and ranchers out to dry," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "While Trump continues to play political games and make shady deals for his own benefit, California will keep fighting on your behalf. We urge the court to stand firm against authoritarianism and uphold the rule of law that it is sworn to protect.”

Since February 2025, President Trump has issued an unprecedented and chaotic series of executive orders imposing tariffs, ranging from 10% to 145% on nearly every trading partner of the United States. California is the fourth-largest economy in the world and the largest importer of goods among the 50 states. The illegal tariffs imposed by President Trump using IEEPA threaten to devastate California’s economy, depriving it of $25 billion and more than 64,000 jobs. 

Instead of invoking any of the Tariff or Trade Acts as authority for his unilateral overhaul of our nation’s tariff system, the President invoked IEEPA, a federal statute enacted in 1977 that allows the President to take certain specified actions in response to a declared national emergency resulting from an unusual and extraordinary foreign threat. In the nearly fifty years since its enactment, no President has ever before invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs because IEEPA does not reference the power to tax or tariff at all.   

Moreover, every time that Congress has delegated tariff authority to the President, it has referred explicitly to tariffs, using terms like “duties” or “tariffs.” IEEPA makes no mention of “tariffs,” “duties,” or any similar term, such as “customs,” “taxes,” or “imposts.” IEEPA includes the phrase “regulate . . . importation,” which the Administration has taken to mean impose tariffs — despite the Administration’s inability to point to a single other statute in the entirety of the U.S. Code where “regulate” has been understood to bestow such power to the President. 

BACKGROUND:

Attorney General Bonta is committed to challenging the illegal tariffs that threaten California jobs, businesses, and consumers — tariffs that have sent shockwaves through financial markets, businesses, and consumers in every corner of the globe. The California Department of Justice has challenged President Trump’s illegal tariffs on all fronts:

In April, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs without the consent of Congress. In June, a judge granted California's request for dismissal to allow the state to appeal its case challenging the Trump Administration’s illegal tariffs after the Administration asked that the case be transferred to the Court of International Trade — a motion that California opposed. The dismissal kept the case in California and allowed California to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. California’s case has been held in abeyance by the Ninth Circuit pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of these cases. For more information on California’s case, please see here.

Other states and entities nationwide have filed lawsuits of their own. Attorney General Bonta has filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Oregon v. Trump as well as in the D.C. Circuit in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, cases challenging President Trump’s illegal imposition of tariffs.

Attorney General Bonta has hosted roundtable discussions in San Francisco and Los Angeles for business leaders on the front lines of the tariff war to discuss the impacts of tariffs on industries across California. 

A copy of the brief is available here.

Records sought by U.S. DOJ are outrageously expansive, seek to intimidate those providing and receiving gender-affirming care 

U.S. DOJ subpoena includes unprecedented interpretation of federal law that could expose doctors to criminal liability for offering evidence-based treatments

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced joining a coalition of 19 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The brief opposes the Trump Administration’s motion to reconsider the court’s ruling quashing in its entirety the U.S. Department of Justice’s (U.S. DOJ) subpoena for documents, including patient records, related to gender affirming care at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH). 

“From President Trump to the U.S. Department of Justice, the entirety of the federal government is attacking gender-affirming care — even in states, like California, that support the rights of transgender youth to live their lives as their authentic selves,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We will not bow down to any of those unlawful actions, no matter where they are happening. We are asking the federal district court in Massachusetts to, once again, reject the Trump Administration’s subpoena seeking information related to gender affirming care. The records sought by the U.S. Department of Justice are outrageously expansive and seek to intimidate those providing and receiving gender-affirming care.” 

Since taking office, the Trump Administration has attempted to end lawful medical care that it disfavors. On day one, President Trump issued an Executive Order declaring gender identity a “false” idea. A week later, the President issued another Executive Order attempting to strip federal funding from institutions that provide lifesaving gender-affirming care for young people under the age of 19, with the ultimate goal of ending all gender-affirming care for adolescents. In April, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo directing U.S. DOJ to investigate healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies that engage in gender affirming care.

On June 11, U.S. DOJ sent BCH an administrative subpoena, seeking information and documents relating to the hospital’s provision of gender-affirming care. This subpoena sought a broad range of highly sensitive and confidential records related to both patients and providers. For example, U.S. DOJ is seeking personnel records for nearly all BCH employees and extensive patient records, such as their social security numbers and home addresses.

On September 9, a federal judge voided U.S. DOJ’s subpoena in its entirety, ruling that it was clearly an attempt to interfere with Massachusetts’s right to protect gender-affirming care within its borders and to intimidate BCH and its patients from providing and seeking gender-affirming care. The Trump Administration has now filed a motion for the Court to set aside its ruling.

In their brief, the attorneys general urge the court to uphold its prior ruling quashing U.S. DOJ’s subpoena. They argue that:

• The federal government is clearly seeking to intimidate medical providers from offering critical and medically necessary care to transgender youth, even in states like California where such care is legal and protected.
• As part of this subpoena request, for the first time ever, U.S. DOJ is interpreting the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) as outlawing medical providers from prescribing FDA approved medications to their patients for off label use. If U.S. DOJ’s interpretation of the FDCA were accepted, entire fields of medicine could see their practitioners at risk of criminal conviction merely for offering routine, evidence-based treatments. As the amicus brief points out, some studies estimate that as much as 80% of drugs prescribed for children are prescribed for off-label uses. 

The states submitting today’s brief have enacted their own laws, policies, and protections for transgender residents, including transgender youth under the age of 19. California has enacted laws recognizing the right to access gender-affirming care and shielding people who access or provide gender-affirming care from civil or criminal penalties by out-of-state jurisdictions. 

Joining Attorney General Bonta in submitting the amicus brief are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

A copy of the amicus brief can be foud here. 

OAKLAND — Alongside Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and New York Attorney General Letitia James, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 21 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit supporting Planned Parenthood in its challenge to the Trump Administration’s unlawful efforts to defund its health centers. The Defund Provision, enacted as part of the so-called Big Beautiful Bill Act, blocks federal Medicaid funding for essential medical services such as cancer screenings, birth control, STI testing, and wellness exams provided at “prohibited entities.” The criteria for a “prohibited entity” were crafted so that this Defund Provision applies almost exclusively to Planned Parenthood, fulfilling a long-standing goal by Republicans of punishing Planned Parenthood for providing and advocating in support of abortion care. California Planned Parenthoods provide care to nearly one million people annually, and over 80% of Planned Parenthood patients in California rely on Medi-Cal programs to access healthcare. The Defund Provision is already having impacts in California. Planned Parenthood locations have closed altogether and others are limiting services.  

“The Trump Administration’s assault on healthcare, which includes reproductive care, knows no bounds. Right now, the federal government remains shut down because Republicans refuse to act to stop Americans’ monthly premiums from skyrocketing. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of how disastrous the Defund Provision will be for the loss of vital healthcare services that Planned Parenthood and other health centers provide,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I have filed our own lawsuit against the provision, and we are now continuing to show our unyielding support for the lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood. The Trump Administration says that it wants to Make America Healthy Again, but its actions repeatedly tell a far different story. We cannot, and will not, remain silent.”

Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 23 states in July in suing the Trump Administration over the Defund Provision and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction last month. That case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Planned Parenthood also filed a parallel challenge, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In that case, the District Court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the Defund Provision, concluding that Planned Parenthood had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their claims that the Defund Provision violated the First Amendment and the Equal Protection clause, as well as the prohibition on Bills of Attainder in the U.S. Constitution. On September 11, 2025, the First Circuit issued an unpublished order granting the Trump Administration’s request to allow the Defund Provision to go into effect. The brief filed today supports Planned Parenthood’s request for a preliminary injunction, providing the First Circuit with additional evidence of the irreparable injury that implementation of the Defund Provision would have on the amici States and their citizens.

Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of sexual and reproductive healthcare in the United States. As the brief states, because many other providers elect not to accept Medicaid patients, Planned Parenthood is often one of the only providers of reproductive healthcare services in rural and underserved areas. In fiscal year 2023 to 2024, Planned Parenthood provided 9.45 million services across the country, including 425,000 cancer screening and prevention services, 2.2 million contraceptive services, 4.1 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, as well as primary care visits, pregnancy tests, and prenatal services. Of those 9.45 million services, Planned Parenthood provided approximately 400,000 abortion services, a small fraction of the services provided to patients. Planned Parenthood receives no federal funding for abortion care.

The brief states that other providers do not have the capacity to handle the high volume of patients that Planned Parenthood health centers currently treat. If additional Planned Parenthood health centers are forced to close, other providers would have to increase their caseloads by 28% to more than 100%, if they choose to accept the patients at all. State budgets are limited, and using state funds to fully reimburse Planned Parenthood for all Medicaid services would strain state finances at a time where states are already dealing with unprecedented levels of federal funding cuts. For California, that would require $328 million.

The brief was co-led by the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, and New York and joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the brief can be found here. 

Group co-founded by Stephen Miller advancing previously rejected evidence and arguments

Citizenship documentation requirement would be unlawful, create substantial and costly burdens on state and local officials 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 19 attorneys general in opposing a petition that the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) — an independent, bipartisan, four-member body established by Congress — commence rulemaking to impose a documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) requirement on the Federal Mail-In Voter Registration Form (Federal Form). On August 21, 2025, the EAC requested comments on the petition, which was filed by the America First Legal Foundation (AFL). AFL describes itself as a nonprofit law firm and was co-founded by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller in 2021. On March 25, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order No. 14248 (Executive Order), an unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and un-American attempt to impose sweeping voting restrictions, including imposing DPOC on the Federal Form. Attorney General Bonta is currently leading a multistate coalition in suing the Trump Administration over the Executive Order, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has blocked the Executive Order’s mandate for DPOC from taking effect. AFL’s petition represents another attempt to impose DPOC on the Federal Form. The deadline to provide public comment on AFL’s petition is this coming Monday, October 20, 2025 at 11:59 PM EDT.

“I’ve said repeatedly that voting is the fundamental right from which all other rights flow. I believe that at my core, and it’s why I’m proud to oppose yet another effort that would add — rather than remove — barriers to voter registration,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Despite claims to the contrary, our elections are secure: Voting by non-citizens is exceedingly rare, and the penalties for non-citizen registration remain serious under both federal and state law. My fellow attorneys general and I remain fully committed to protecting voters’ fundamental right to cast a ballot and defending against the relentless attacks on the right.” 

In the letter, the attorneys general underscore that:

• AFL’s petition raises evidence and arguments substantially similar to those previously considered and rejected by the EAC on multiple occasions. Reversal of those reasoned decisions by the EAC, based on the AFL’s petition for rulemaking, would therefore result in an unlawful and arbitrary agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
• The DPOC requirement that AFL is seeking violates federal law. The specific contents of the Federal Form are governed by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), a federal law that limits the content of the Federal Form to address only what is “necessary” for state election officials to determine the eligibility of prospective voters. Because the inclusion of DPOC is not “necessary” — attestation of citizenship, backed by criminal and immigration penalties, along with the various tools available to states to cross-check citizenship, adequately serves this purpose — it violates the NVRA.
• The adverse effects of requiring DPOC cut strongly against the petition for rulemaking. Imposition of a DPOC requirement on the Federal Form would create substantial and costly burdens on the state and local officials who administer federal elections. Moreover, a requirement for DPOC would inevitably disenfranchise large swaths of otherwise eligible voters who lack ready access to the type of documentation contemplated in the petition.

In submitting today’s comment letter, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

A copy of the comment letter can be found here.