Federal Accountability

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump Administration from imposing cruel new restrictions on access to public benefit programs based on immigration status while litigation continues. Programs include Head Start, childcare services for low-income people, adult education, mental health and substance use disorder programs, and shelters for at-risk youth and domestic violence survivors, among others. After filing a lawsuit in July 2025, the multistate coalition had subsequently secured an agreement temporarily preventing the Trump Administration from implementing various agency notices significantly expanding federal public benefit ineligibility based on immigration status before today, September 10, 2025. 

“With today’s decision, vital education, nutrition, and health programs like Head Start — and the families who rely on their services — can breathe a sigh of relief,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration continues to pull the rug out from under California families just trying to get by, but we’re fighting back. We’re grateful that a district court has put a stop to this cruel new directive while our litigation continues.” 

The decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island ensures that millions of families can continue to access critical services without fear of denial or disruption while our litigation continues. With this ruling, the court acknowledges that the Trump Administration likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution by issuing sweeping new mandates without lawful rulemaking, grossly misreading the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, and failing to consider the devastating impacts on states and communities.  

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

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell today co-led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) proposed federal rule that would eliminate veterans’ and their families’ access to abortion care. In 2022, the Biden Administration implemented the “Reproductive Health Services” Rule (the Rule), which currently allows veterans and their survivors and dependents to access abortion services at VA health care centers in situations where the patient’s life or health is threatened and in cases of self-reported rape or incest. The Rule also permits veterans and their survivors and dependents to access abortion counseling at VA health centers. After the Trump Administration indicated it was reviewing the Rule and held meetings with other stakeholders on the Rule, a coalition of attorneys general — including the Office of Attorney General Bonta — met with VA officials and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on April 8, 2025 to express why rolling back the Rule would cause harm to veterans and their families. On August 4, 2025, the Trump Administration published a proposed rule to formally undo the Biden Administration’s Rule. The comment letter is submitted in response to the VA’s invitation for public comment.  

“Earlier this year, my fellow attorneys general and I urged the Trump Administration to protect access to abortion care for veterans and their families in cases of rape, incest, and when the life or health of the woman is at risk. We also urged the Trump Administration to protect access to abortion counseling. Despite our commonsense positions, the Trump Administration has decided to continue its relentless attacks on reproductive healthcare,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As I have said before, medical decisions should be made by patients and their doctors — free from political interference. I’m proud to be co-leading my fellow attorneys general in calling on the Trump Administration to withdraw its proposed rule, which is both extreme and unjustified by any legal rationale.” 

On September 2, 2022, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, the Biden Administration’s VA announced the interim version of the Rule. On October 11, 2022, Attorney General Bonta led a coalition of 23 attorneys general in filing a comment letter supporting the VA’s efforts to increase reproductive freedom. After receiving public comment, the VA finalized the Rule on March 4, 2024. Since the Dobbs decision, at least 19 states have banned or restricted abortion care, while others are still proposing new restrictions.  

In the letter, the attorneys general write that: 

• The proposed rule presents an unclear standard as to when, if at all, VA physicians can provide abortion care. Specifically, the proposed rule’s preamble insists that it will allow VA physicians to provide lifesaving care — in circumstances “when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term” — while the proposed regulatory text bans abortion care for veterans entirely. Generally, where there is a discrepancy between the preamble and the regulatory text, the regulatory text controls. In addition, to the extent that the VA carves out an exception for the lives of pregnant survivors and dependents, it fails to set out a process by which individuals may take advantage of the exception.
• The proposed rule is extreme in its formulation and is out of step with existing abortion exceptions on the state and federal level. Although exceptions themselves are problematic and often difficult to administer, the VA’s proposed changes would mark a substantial and inhumane departure from decades of policy protecting the health and lives of pregnant patients and the autonomy of pregnant patients who have experienced rape and incest.
• The proposed rule is inadequately justified. It falsely claims that the VA does not have legal authority to provide abortion care, obfuscates other federal abortion policy in order to establish congressional intent for a VA abortion ban where there is none, and relies on political considerations instead of medical ones. 

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

A copy of the comment letter can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta, leading a multistate coalition along with New York Attorney General Letitia James, filed an amicus brief opposing a new federal policy that mandates indefinite detention of many undocumented immigrants without the opportunity for a bond hearing. In a brief filed in Bautista v. Noem, the coalition challenges the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) unprecedented reinterpretation of immigration law, arguing it violates due process and federal statutes, and inflicts widespread harm on families, communities, and state economies. 

“The Trump Administration has created a mass deportation apparatus built around the abduction and incarceration of immigrants,” said Attorney General Bonta. “It’s inhumane — and illegal. We’re talking about individuals who have lived and worked in the U.S. for years, who have had families here and become vital parts of their communities. They deserve to be treated with respect, and they have the right to the due process afforded to them by the Constitution.”  

For decades, immigrants living in the U.S. who were placed in removal proceedings had the right to request a bond hearing — a chance to argue for their release while their immigration case was pending. DHS’s new policy eliminates that right for those who entered the country without inspection, mandating their indefinite detention regardless of individual circumstances. Many of these individuals have lived in the U.S. for years and now face confinement in often overcrowded, unsafe, and unsanitary facilities for months or even years. As DHS expands its enforcement efforts, millions of additional immigrants could be subjected to mandatory detention under this policy. 

More than nine million U.S. citizens, including over four million children, live with at least one undocumented family member. Studies show that the detention of a parent significantly increases the risk of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder in children, and deepens economic instability for entire households. Fear of detention already deters immigrant families from seeking health care, food assistance, and even reporting crimes, undermining both public safety and public health. The attorneys general argue that the mandatory detention policy only exacerbates this chilling effect.

Undocumented immigrants also constitute nearly five percent of the U.S. workforce and play critical roles in industries such as agriculture and construction. In 2023, undocumented-led households paid nearly $90 billion in taxes and contributed almost $300 billion in consumer spending. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that unnecessarily detaining these workers disrupts the labor force and undermines local and state economies. The attorneys general also argue this policy will come at a substantial cost to taxpayers. In 2024, immigration detention cost U.S. taxpayers $3.4 billion – roughly $152 per detainee per day. By contrast, DHS’s own Alternatives to Detention program costs less than $4.20 per day and is equally effective in ensuring court appearances. The attorneys general argue that DHS’s shift away from these cost-effective alternatives wastes taxpayer dollars while delivering no added benefit.

The attorneys general also emphasize that indefinite detention severely limits detainees’ ability to access legal representation, particularly when they are transferred to remote facilities far from their families and attorneys. This drastically reduces their chances of obtaining legal relief, even when they are eligible to remain in the country. In addition to being inhumane, denying individuals the opportunity for a bond hearing contradicts longstanding legal precedent and fundamental due process protections. The coalition emphasizes that individualized assessments are standard in both civil and criminal proceedings, and immigrants should not be treated differently simply because of their legal status.

The attorneys general urge the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to grant partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs and strike down DHS’s unlawful policy.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Bonta released the California Department of Justice’s fourth report on immigration detention facilities operating in California where noncitizens are detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The report is intended to provide members of the public and policymakers with critical information about the conditions that people in civil immigration detention in California are subjected to. A copy of the report is available here. A copy of the executive summary is also available in Spanish here. 

Attorney General Bonta and Attorney General James are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia in filing the amicus brief. 

A copy of the amicus brief is available here. 

On August 5, 2025, the Trump Administration ordered the National Guard to be federalized and deployed for an additional 90 days

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today asked a court to block the Trump Administration’s order federalizing and deploying 300 members of California’s National Guard for an additional 90 days and to order the Trump Administration to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom. Long before the 60-day timeframe of the original deployment order had expired, the sporadic episodes of civil unrest that the Trump Administration relied on as shaky justification for the federalization of these troops had abated. They have not since reoccurred. Despite this, on August 5, 2025, the Trump Administration issued a new order to federalize and deploy 300 remaining California National Guard troops. If allowed to stand, this new deployment order would ensure that California’s residents will remain under a form of military occupation until November 5 — through Election Day. 

“The Trump Administration continues to hold our National Guard servicemembers hostage as part of an unprecedented attempt to militarize American streets,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The initial federalization and deployment of these troops was unjustified — their redeployment for an additional 90 days is absurd. We’re asking the court to block implementation of this latest order, and we are confident that given the facts — or lack thereof — underpinning this order, the court will agree.”

“The timing of Trump’s extension of the National Guard soldiers isn’t coincidental — he’s holding onto soldiers through Election Day. There was never a need and there is not a need now for soldiers to be deployed against their communities,” said Governor Newsom. “The federal government hasn’t even tried to justify keeping the military in Los Angeles because they can’t. The reality is this — they want to continue their intimidation tactics to scare Californians into submission.” 

Since July 1, 2025, the Trump Administration has drawn down the use of federalized National Guard troops without issue until just 300 troops remained. Yet, without justification, on August 5, 2025, the Trump Administration issued a new order federalizing 300 National Guard troops for an additional 90 days. This order is neither supported by the law nor the facts. The Trump Administration cannot establish — and has not even attempted to establish — that there was an invasion, rebellion, or inability to execute federal law anywhere in California on August 5, 2025. 

During their initial deployment, National Guard troops participated in low-risk federal law enforcement operations in Los Angeles and communities over 100 miles away. Far from being deployed in response to threats to federal personnel or property, federal law enforcement officials routinely requested and received the assistance of federalized troops for operations as a “safety measure,” even if the military’s risk assessment showed that there was not any threat that would require military support. Moreover, these troops were often called on to engage in civilian law enforcement activities, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. In the first weeks of their deployment, a Trump Administration official estimated that federalized National Guard troops accompanied federal agents on up to 75% of immigration arrests.

In their motion, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom ask the court to issue a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the Trump Administration’s August 5 deployment order and returning control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom.

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 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 and the Marines for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. 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, and earlier today, that court granted an injunction permanently enjoining the Trump Administration from engaging in the same or similar activity in the future.

A copy of the motion for a preliminary injunction is available here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today responded to a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California 1) finding that the Trump Administration’s use of federalized California National Guard troops and Marines for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act and 2) permanently enjoining the Trump Administration from engaging in the same or similar activity in the future. This includes, but is not limited to, engaging in arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants. The District Court’s order is stayed until September 12, 2025, at 12pm.

“Today’s ruling affirms that President Trump is not King, and the power of the executive is not boundless,” said Attorney General Bonta. “For more than two months, the President has engaged in political theater, using National Guard troops and Marines as pawns to further his anti-immigrant agenda. In doing so, he trampled on one of the very basic foundations of our democracy: That our military be apolitical and the activities of troops on U.S. soil be extremely limited to ensure civil liberties and protect against military overreach. I applaud the District Court for firmly rejecting the Trump Administration’s reckless interpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act and rebuking its unprecedented use of military troops for civilian law enforcement in California communities.” 

The Posse Comitatus Act is a law that Congress passed making it illegal to use the military for civilian law enforcement. The Act has deep roots in American tradition, going back to the founding of our country, when the British King used his military to police the Colonies. Over the course of a three-day trial last month, California showed and the District Court today affirmed that the Trump Administration, in its orders to the federalized California National Guard and Marines, violated the Posse Comitatus Act, finding that: 

• The Trump Administration is making direct, active use of military personnel to execute the law, including through the provision of armed perimeter support and blockades at numerous operations.  
• The Trump Administration’s use of the military to “bolster DHS and DEA operations and shows of force exercises regulatory, proscriptive, and compulsory power on the surrounding public, and [the military’s] participation in operations in numbers that match or outnumber law enforcement agents pervade the activities of those civilian agents.” 
• “PCA violations were part of a top-down, systemic effort by Defendants to use military troops to execute various sectors of federal law (the drug laws and the immigration laws at least) across hundreds of miles and over the course of several months—and counting. The instructions to train Task Force 51 on the purported constitutional exception and thereby excuse unlawful military conduct came 'all the way from the top' of the Department of Defense.”

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

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today prevailed in preserving funding for AmeriCorps, an independent federal agency that engages Americans in meaningful community-based service by providing opportunities for more than 200,000 Americans to serve their communities every year. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) agreed to release over $184 million in funding, including $11.5 million for California, that AmeriCorps plans to award to service programs across the country, following a multistate challenge. OMB’s attempted cuts threatened the survival of those programs and the well-being of those who depend on them. On July 23, Attorney General Bonta led a coalition in filing an amended lawsuit challenging OMB’s attempt to gut AmeriCorps programs. Today, when their response for these actions was due in Court, OMB and AmeriCorps instead agreed to fully release the previously withheld funds.  

"Once again, because of our lawsuit, the Trump Administration has backed down, reversed course and committed to release vital funding to our states," said Attorney General Bonta. "AmeriCorps volunteers represent the best of who we are as a country. The Trump Administration's senseless attack on AmeriCorps programs, which directly support communities across our state and nation, is just one part of its broader effort to dismantle our government and defund the programs and services it provides. But California will not stop holding this Administration accountable. We’re continuing to fight for — and win — full relief for Californians."

AmeriCorps supports national and state community service programs by funding and placing volunteers in local and national organizations that address critical community needs. Organizations rely on support from AmeriCorps to recruit, place, and supervise AmeriCorps members nationwide. In 2024, more than 6,150 California members served at least 1,200 locations, including schools, food banks, homeless shelters, health clinics, youth centers, veterans’ facilities, and other nonprofit and faith-based organizations. AmeriCorps invested more than $133 million in federal funding to California that same year to support cost-effective community solutions, working with local partners on the ground to help communities tackle their toughest challenges. This includes programs like:

• Prevent Child Abuse California, which hosts 65 AmeriCorps members who provide academic assistance, life skills, and financial literacy to hundreds of foster youths across 15 counties. 
• Partnership for Veterans and People Experiencing Homeless, which hosts 25 AmeriCorps members that provide housing services, job placement, and case management to veterans and homeless individuals in Santa Barbara County.
• Reading Partners California, which hosts 80 AmeriCorps members who recruit and manage approximately 1400 volunteers to provide one-on-one literacy tutoring to students at 58 low-income elementary schools.

On April 29, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition challenged the administration’s plans to eliminate nearly 90% of AmeriCorps’ workforce, abruptly cancel its contracts, and close $400 million worth of AmeriCorps-supported programs. In June, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition secured a court order reinstating hundreds of AmeriCorps programs that were unlawfully cancelled and barring AmeriCorps from making similar cuts without formal rulemaking. Despite this order, OMB withheld vast sums intended for outstanding service programs, threatening their survival and the wellbeing of those who depend on their services. 

The coalition subsequently filed an amended lawsuit adding OMB as a defendant and a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking for an order to stop OMB from withholding the relevant funds. The Trump Administration’s response was due yesterday, August 28, 2025. Rather than oppose the states’ motion, the Administration instead informed the Court that OMB would release all withheld AmeriCorps funds, totaling over $184 million, which AmeriCorps will distribute to programs nationwide, as quickly as possible.  

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

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured an agreement requiring the Trump Administration to release the full balance of remaining education funding at issue in a multistate lawsuit by no later than October 3, 2025. Last month, Attorney General Bonta co-led a coalition of 23 attorneys general and two states in suing the Trump Administration over its unconstitutional, unlawful, and arbitrary decision to freeze funding for six longstanding programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education just weeks before the school year was set to start. In California, over $900 million in federal education funding was frozen, jeopardizing key programs for after school and summer learning, teacher preparation, and to support students learning English. Days later, the Trump Administration released the first tranche of funding that had previously been withheld. The multistate coalition and the Trump Administration today jointly filed a motion to dismiss the case under the terms of an agreement that ensures the remaining funding is released on time, providing California and the multistate coalition with the full relief they had sought in the lawsuit.

“The Trump Administration upended school programs across the country when it recklessly withheld vital education funding just weeks before the school year was set to begin,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Fortunately, after we filed our lawsuit, the Trump Administration backed down and released the funding it had previously withheld. Today’s agreement ensures the rest of this funding is released, as scheduled, in October, successfully resolving our lawsuit. Over the past six months, state attorneys general have been a bulwark in the fight against the Trump Administration’s reckless and illegal efforts to slash, withhold, or condition federal funding, and we are not taking our foot off the gas. Our kids deserve so much better than what this anti-education Administration has to offer, and we will continue to fight to protect them from this President’s relentless attacks.”

BACKGROUND

On June 30, the Trump Administration abruptly and unlawfully froze funding for six longstanding programs administered by ED just weeks before the school year in many parts of California is set to start. For decades, California and other states have used funding under these programs to carry out a broad range of programs and services, including educational programs for migrant children and English learners; programs that promote effective classroom instruction, improve school conditions, and support the use of technology in the classroom; community learning centers that offer students a broad range of opportunities for academic and extracurricular enrichment; and adult education and workforce development efforts. 

On July 14, Attorney General Bonta co-led a coalition in filing a lawsuit and motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the freeze violates federal funding statutes and regulations authorizing these critical programs and appropriating funds for them, federal statutes governing the federal budgeting process, and the constitutional separation of powers doctrine and the Presentment Clause.   

On July 25, the California Department of Education (CDE) received notice from ED that beginning the week of July 28, 2025, ED would begin releasing previously impounded federal funds for the current federal and education fiscal year. CDE subsequently received Grant Award Notifications confirming that the entirety of the funds that ED was required to make available to the states on July 1 had been released. 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to defending California’s educational institutions and students against the Trump Administration’s illegal attacks. Attorney General Bonta has filed lawsuits challenging the unlawful termination of grant funding for K-12 teacher preparation programs; the mass firings and dismantling of ED; unlawful conditioning of K-12 education funding; and the discontinuation of school mental health grant funding. He’s also secured other relief for California schools including the funding released this week and $200 million in previously awarded education funding to address the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on schools.

A copy of the motion to dismiss with stipulations is available here.

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

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

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

In the comment letter, the attorneys general underscore that: 

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

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

A copy of the comment letter can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, leading a coalition of 17 attorneys general, submitted a second amicus brief in support  of litigation challenging U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) unconstitutional and unlawful stops of Southern California residents during immigration sweeps. The lawsuit comes amid the Trump Administration’s campaign of conducting aggressive, militaristic immigration raids that have terrified immigrant and non-immigrant residents alike, chilled community members’ participation in civic society, and impeded law enforcement and public safety. The District Court for the Central District of California previously granted a temporary restraining order against ICE and CBP and the Ninth Circuit declined to stay that order, both concluding that the federal government’s conduct was likely unlawful. In today’s amicus brief, the attorneys general urge the court to grant further relief in the form of a preliminary injunction to prevent ongoing harms to the states and their residents.   

“The Trump Administration is conducting immigration stops of California residents based solely off the color of their skin, the language that they speak, or the job that they work in a brazen violation of the Fourth Amendment,” said Attorney General Bonta. “These immigration raids are not about detaining violent criminals – they’re about meeting arbitrary quotas, no matter the cost. It’s not just immoral, it’s unconstitutional. I urge the court to block ICE and CBP from employing these racially-motivated, unscrupulous tactics and allow our communities to return to peace.” 

In 1954, California was the first of two states targeted for immigration enforcement under an immigration enforcement initiative known as “Operation Wetback” that took its name from an ethnic slur. “Operation Wetback” involved the mass arrest and deportation of 300,000 people, including U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, history appears to be again repeating itself. During his presidential campaign, President Donald Trump praised “Operation Wetback” as a model, promising an aggressive and militarized crackdown on undocumented immigration. In recent months, the President has sought to follow through on this promise. He has praised masked immigration agents conducting unannounced enforcement actions throughout California communities and, in all too many instances, stopping residents without so much as a reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct, leaving people afraid to leave their homes. In carrying out these suspicionless stops, the Trump Administration has made a target out of California’s diverse communities, chilled civic and economic participation, and damaged trust between law enforcement and communities.

In today’s amicus brief, the attorneys general argue that preliminary injunctive relief is in the public interest because: 

• CBP and ICE engaging in unlawful stops of Californians without a reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity has harmed local economies, public health, and several other core facets of daily life.
• Federal law enforcement’s tactics in conducting these stops, which include wearing masks and concealing the law enforcement entity they work for, have impeded local law enforcement and threatened public safety. 

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 June, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging the unlawful use of federalized California National Guard troops for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Last week, the Attorney General’s Office presented evidence of these violations during a three-day trial before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Attorney General Bonta leads the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington in filing the amicus brief. 

A copy of the amicus brief is available here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday asked a court to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from attempting to force states to turn over the personal and sensitive information about millions of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients while litigation over the legality of the demand continues. SNAP is a federally funded, state-administered program that provides billions of dollars in food assistance to tens of millions of low-income families across the country. SNAP applicants provide their private information on the understanding, backed by long-standing state and federal laws, that their information will not be used for unrelated purposes. Last month, Attorney General Bonta led a multistate coalition in suing USDA, arguing that its demand that states turn over SNAP data violates multiple federal privacy laws and the U.S. Constitution. Then, last week, Trump’s USDA threatened to cut off crucial administrative funding that states depend on to run the SNAP program if the states do not turn over the demanded data.

“We’re filing a motion to block the Trump Administration’s illegal attempt to bully states into providing private SNAP participants’ data,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Fear should not be a factor when signing up for SNAP benefits to feed your family. The Trump Administration’s own statements contradict its claims that this data is necessary to combat ‘waste, fraud, and abuse.’ We’re asking the court to prevent USDA from withholding vital funding in retaliation for states refusing to meet its unlawful demands." 

For 60 years, California and other states have administered SNAP, which serves as an essential safety net for millions of low-income Americans by providing credits that can be used to purchase groceries for themselves and their family members. In those 60 years, the federal government and state agencies have worked together to build a robust process for ensuring that only eligible individuals receive benefits. Those systems do not, and have never, required that states turn over sensitive, personally identifying information about millions of Americans without any meaningful restrictions on how that information is used or shared with other agencies. 

Yet in July 2025, USDA made an unprecedented demand that states turn over massive amounts of personal information on all SNAP applicants and recipients, including their social security numbers, home addresses, and even their shopping history dating back five years. Even a year’s worth of SNAP recipient data contains sensitive, personal identifying information on tens of millions of individuals — including more than five million in California alone. The federal government’s stated justifications for its unprecedented data demands, to “prevent fraud and abuse,” are directly contradicted by their own statements describing SNAP as having “one of the most rigorous quality control systems in the federal government.”

After Attorney General Bonta and a multistate coalition filed a lawsuit challenging USDA’s demand, USDA threatened to withhold federal administrative SNAP funding to the states — which total $1.4 billion for California alone. In yesterday's motion for a preliminary injunction, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the court to intervene to prevent USDA from pressing its unlawful demand for data — and using critical administrative funding as leverage — before the court has a chance to address the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.  

Attorneys General Bonta and New York Attorney General Letitia James lead the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the state of Kentucky, in filing the motion.

A copy of the motion can be found here.