Federal Accountability

LOS ANGELES – California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and the California Air Resources Board today led a coalition of 10 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit against the federal government challenging the unprecedented and unlawful use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to upend California’s clean vehicles program, specifically the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACCII), Omnibus, and Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) standards. Predicated on illegal actions by the Trump Administration, Congress purported to disapprove the Clean Air Act waivers, granted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that allow California to enforce these more stringent, state-level emission standards. In the 50 years since the Clean Air Act was enacted, waivers have never been subject to the CRA.  Nor have any other agency orders that adjudicate requests for permission—such as oil and gas leases or mining permits. Congress’s unprecedented action attempting to invalidate California’s waivers contradicts the non-partisan Government Accountability Office and Senate Parliamentarian, both of whom determined that the CRA process to disapprove federal regulations does not apply to waivers.

If California is prevented from enforcing these vehicle emission standards, it will result in the loss of significant economic and public health benefits, costing California taxpayers an estimated $45 billion in preventable health care costs. Despite decades of progress, tens of millions of Californians still breathe some of the worst air in the nation—these regulations were specifically designed to change that. Losing these standards would also undermine market certainty for vehicle manufacturers, stifling innovation and job creation, including in the electric vehicle sector, which has been a growing source of high-paying green jobs and investment. 

“The President’s reckless, politically motivated, and illegal attacks on California continue, this time with his attempt to trample on our longstanding authority to maintain more stringent clean vehicle standards,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The President is busy playing partisan games with lives on the line and yanking away good jobs that would bolster the economy – ignoring that these actions have life or death consequences for California communities breathing dirty, toxic air. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: California will not back down. We will continue to fiercely defend ourselves from this lawless federal overreach.”

“Trump’s all-out assault on California continues – and this time he’s destroying our clean air and America’s global competitiveness in the process," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a President who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big polluters.”

Motor vehicle emissions contribute to the formation of smog, as well as fine particle pollution and unhealthy levels of air toxics, all of which are linked to premature death, respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, and cancer, among other serious health impacts. Transportation is also the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, and cars and trucks account for more than 80% of those transportation emissions. 

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set federal emission standards for air pollutants from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines that cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare. The Clean Air Act allows California to adopt more stringent emission requirements independent from EPA’s regulations, and the Act requires EPA to approve preemption waivers for those requirements absent certain, limited circumstances not present here. Historically, EPA – under both Republican and Democratic administration – has granted California more than 75 preemption waivers for updates to the State’s new motor vehicle emissions control program. As Congress intended, these waivers have allowed California to improve on its vehicle emissions program, which pre-existed the federal government’s efforts to regulate vehicle emissions via the Clean Air Act.

Consumers are rapidly embracing clean vehicle options. In California alone, over 2 million zero-emission passenger cars have been sold, with clean vehicles now making up 26% of all new car sales. This momentum extends to the medium-and heavy-duty vehicle market as well, where sales have exceeded targets for two consecutive years – well ahead of timelines set by state regulations.

Since 2023, the EPA granted California three waivers, allowing it to enforce the ACC II, Omnibus and ACT regulations in California. Under ACC II, automakers must continue to sell an increasing number of zero-emission vehicles in California—as they have been for decades. By model year 2035, 80% of the passenger vehicles sold in California must be zero-emission, while the remaining 20% may be plug-in hybrids. Advanced Clean Truck regulations, which aim to accelerate the widespread adoption of zero emission vehicles in the medium and heavy-duty truck sector, are similarly critical for California’s efforts to meet air quality standards and protect public health. By 2040, the Advanced Clean Truck regulations will reduce emissions of NOx by 16.9 tons per day and fine particulate matter emissions by 0.46 tons per day. The Omnibus regulation requires internal combustion heavy-duty trucks sold in California to meet strict standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), which are major contributors to smog formation.

Under the direction of President Trump, the EPA transmitted these waivers to Congress as “rules” in an attempt to invoke CRA procedures, even though all three waivers state EPA’s consistent and longstanding position, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, that waiver decisions are not “rules.” Both the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate illegally used the CRA to “disapprove” of California’s Clean Air Act waivers.

The complaint filed today alleges that the attempt to invalidate California’s waivers violated constitutional principles of federalism and separation of powers, the Take Care Clause, and multiple federal statutes including the Congressional Review Act and Administrative Procedure Act.  The complaint asks the court to declare the resolutions to be unlawful and to require the Administration to implement the Clean Air Act consistent with the granted waivers. 

Attorney General Bonta led the lawsuit with the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

A copy of the complaint is available here.

Lawsuit responds to threats by U.S. DOJ if California school districts do not certify to banning transgender students from playing on sports teams consistent with their gender identity 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a pre-enforcement lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ) in anticipation of imminent legal retaliation against California’s school systems. Last week, U.S. DOJ issued a letter requesting certification from California school districts that they will not comply with longstanding state anti-discrimination law that provides for the participation in sports for K-12 students consistent with gender identity. Today, the California Department of Education notified U.S. DOJ that the state will not certify to its demands, which would require school districts to violate not only existing state law, but also the U.S. Constitution. In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to uphold California’s anti-discrimination law and prevent the Trump Administration from taking retaliatory action, such as withholding or conditioning federal funding, over the state’s refusal to comply with U.S. DOJ’s unlawful demands. 

“The President and his Administration are demanding that California school districts break the law and violate the Constitution – or face legal retaliation. They’re demanding that our schools discriminate against the students in their care and deny their constitutionally protected rights,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As we’ve proven time and again in court, just because the President disagrees with a law, that doesn’t make it any less of one. As California’s chief legal officer, I’ll always fight to uphold and defend the laws of our state, especially those that protect and ensure the civil rights of the most vulnerable among us.”

Since 2012, it has been the law and policy of California that all persons, regardless of their gender, gender identity, or gender expression, should enjoy equal rights and opportunities, and freedom from discrimination of any kind, in their education. In 2013, the Legislature made clear that these protections specifically encompass school athletics. Similarly, the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), the statewide governing body for school sports, allows all students to participate in athletics in accordance with their gender identity pursuant to its Bylaw 300.D. 

With its recent certification letter, U.S. DOJ seeks to unlawfully upend, through executive decree, California’s longstanding policy of inclusion and anti-discrimination. On June 2, 2025, local educational agencies in California received a letter from U.S. DOJ wrongly asserting that Bylaw 300.D “requires California public high schools to allow male participation in girls’ interscholastic athletics,” and as such, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The letter demanded that these agencies “certify” that they would not implement Bylaw 300.D by June 9, 2025, “[t]o ensure compliance and to avoid legal liability.”

In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta argues that U.S. DOJ has no right to make such a demand. Prevailing Ninth Circuit precedent holds that categorically prohibiting transgender students from participating in athletic programs in accordance with their gender identity violates the Equal Protection Clause. Furthermore, allowing athletic participation consistent with students’ gender identity is squarely within the State’s authority to ensure all students are afforded the benefits of an inclusive school environment, including participation in school sports, and to prevent the serious harms that transgender students would suffer from a discriminatory, exclusionary policy. Acceding to U.S. DOJ’s demands would force California school districts to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and California’s antidiscrimination laws. While the certification demand letter purports that compliance with the Equal Protection Clause requires the categorical exclusion of transgender girls from girls’ sports, as courts have previously upheld, just the opposite is true: the Equal Protection Clause forbids such policies of total exclusion, as does California law.

A copy of the lawsuit is available here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta this week, as part of a coalition of 21 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in support of Harvard University’s motion for summary judgment in President and Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s freeze of federal funding for research grants at Harvard University. In their brief, the attorneys general argue that the freezing and termination of Harvard’s research grants would pose an existential threat to universities, disrupt state’s economies, public health efforts, and the pipeline for the next generation of researchers. 

“The Trump Administration is going after Harvard because it refused to bend to its unprecedented – and blatantly unlawful – demands,” said Attorney General Bonta. “In California, we remain committed to upholding and protecting the constitutional and civil rights of our educational institutions and their students. I’m proud to stand with Harvard in ensuring that we continue to protect our students, their wellbeing, and their freedom of speech.”

In April 2025, Harvard filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts arguing that the Trump Administration exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority and violated the First Amendment in freezing, terminating, and refusing to issue or continue research and other grants in retaliation for Harvard’s refusal to restructure its internal governance, change its hiring and admissions practices, and modify what it teaches its students to align with the government’s views.

In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the court to grant Harvard’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Trump Administration’s unlawful freeze of federal funding poses an existential threat to the university which will (1) impact the state’s economy, (2) threaten current jobs and businesses, (3) halt career development for promising new scientists debilitating the pipeline for future innovators, and (4) prevent research for lifesaving medicines and transformative technologies with the potential to improve the health and lives of residents.

Harvard’s contributions to Massachusetts are a prime example of the significant impact research universities can have. Since its founding in 1636, Harvard has been critical to Massachusetts’s flourishing, directing billions of dollars to the state’s businesses and organizations and driving countless of innovations in medicine and technology. In addition, Harvard is one of Massachusetts’s largest employers and frequently collaborates with state and local partners on initiatives that support the local economy.

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

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and California Governor Gavin Newsom today sued President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth in response to their orders seeking to federalize the California National Guard for 60 days under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. In the early hours of Sunday morning, the U.S. Department of Defense, at the direction of the President, redirected hundreds of National Guard troops from San Diego to Los Angeles, without authorization from the Governor and against the wishes of local law enforcement. In total, the Department intends to deploy 2,000 troops from across the state, an inflammatory escalation unsupported by conditions on the ground. In a lawsuit being filed today, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom will ask the court to hold unlawful and set aside the President’s order federalizing the National Guard by way of a rarely used law, arguing that such action exceeds the federal government’s authority under the law and violates the Tenth Amendment.

“President Trump’s order calling federalized National Guard troops into Los Angeles – over the objections of the Governor and local law enforcement – is unnecessary and counterproductive. It’s also deeply unfair to the members of the National Guard who are hard at work every day protecting our state, preparing for and responding to emergencies, and training so that, if called, they can fight our nation’s wars,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Let me be clear: There is no invasion. There is no rebellion. The President is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends. Federalizing the California National Guard is an abuse of the President’s authority under the law – and not one we take lightly. We’re asking a court to put a stop to the unlawful, unprecedented order.”

“Donald Trump is creating fear and terror by failing to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and overstepping his authority. This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “Every governor, red or blue, should reject this outrageous overreach. This is beyond incompetence — this is him intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities, and endangering the principles of our great democracy. It is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism. We will not let this stand.” 

On Friday and Saturday, June 6 and 7, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted multiple immigration raids in downtown Los Angeles. These raids were met with multiple protests. Following threats to send in the National Guard from several Trump Administration officials, on the evening of June 7, President Trump issued a formal memorandum entitled “Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions,” purporting to authorize the Department of Defense to call up 2,000 California National Guard personnel into federal service for a period of 60 days. In implementing this directive, the Department of Defense circumvented authorization from the Governor and began deploying National Guard troops to Los Angeles over the objections of local law enforcement actively on the ground. Notably, by the time the National Guard arrived Sunday morning, the protests had dissipated and streets were quiet, but soon after the National Guard arrived, tensions reignited, leading to the very sort of unrest the National Guard was supposedly sent in to quell. Concerningly, President Trump has already made clear his intention to expand the use of these National Guard troops to conduct interior civil immigration enforcement activities normally conducted by civil immigration law enforcement officers, creating fear and terror in California communities.

President Trump’s unprecedented order attempts to usurp state authority and resources via 10 U.S.C. § 12406, a statute that has been invoked on its own only once before in modern history and for highly unusual circumstances — when President Richard Nixon called upon the National Guard to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service Strike. This is also the first time since 1965 — when President Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators — that a president has activated a state’s National Guard without a request from the state’s governor. Here, Governor Newsom did not request that the state’s National Guard be federalized, as local authorities were managing the situation on the ground, and openly expressed concern that bringing in the National Guard could inflame the situation. After the President plowed ahead with his order, the Governor sent a letter to Secretary Hegseth requesting that the Department of Defense rescind its unlawful deployment of troops in the state and return them to his command. 

In a lawsuit being filed today, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom will ask the court to hold that the President and Department of Defense’s orders federalizing the California National Guard are unlawful, arguing that:

• The federalization of the California National Guard deprives California of resources to protect itself and its citizens, and of critical responders in the event of a state emergency. 
• 10 U.S.C. 12406 requires that the Governor consent to federalization of the National Guard, which Governor Newsom was not given the opportunity to do prior to their deployment.
• The President’s unlawful order infringes on Governor Newsom’s role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the state’s sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard in the absence of a lawful invocation of federal power.

A copy of the lawsuit is available here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland largely blocking the Trump Administration from dismantling AmeriCorps while multistate litigation proceeds. AmeriCorps is an independent federal agency tasked with engaging Americans in meaningful community-based service that directly addresses the country’s educational, public safety, and environmental needs. In February 2025, the Trump Administration issued an executive order directing every federal agency to plan to reduce their workforce and scale back their functions. AmeriCorps subsequently shuttered its National Civilian Community Corps program and placed at least 85% of its permanent workforce on administrative leave, notifying these employees that they would be terminated effective June 24, 2025. And at the end of April, California received notice from the federal government that its AmeriCorps grant programs had been terminated. Attorney General Bonta, along with the attorneys general of Maryland, Delaware, and Colorado, led a coalition of 23 attorneys general and two states in suing to stop the dismantling of the agency. The District Court’s order grants the states’ request to restore AmeriCorps programs, including the volunteer servicemembers who support them, in California and in the other plaintiff states and reverse the shuttering of the National Civilian Community Corps program, while denying preliminary relief to address the layoff of AmeriCorps’ permanent staff.

“AmeriCorps volunteers represent the best parts of America. They are selfless and eager to serve their country – but the reality is, many of them wouldn’t be able to do so without the programs supported by AmeriCorps,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today’s decision ensures this vital service work that brings volunteers directly into California communities will continue while we make our case in court. We will not stop fighting until we secure a permanent decision protecting AmeriCorps and the thousands of hardworking volunteers who have dedicated themselves to public service.”

BACKGROUND

AmeriCorps supports national and state community service programs by providing opportunities for Americans to serve their communities and by awarding grants to local, state, and national organizations and agencies which use funding to address critical community needs. These organizations and agencies use AmeriCorps funding to recruit, place, and supervise AmeriCorps members nationwide. AmeriCorps members and volunteers have connected veterans to essential services, fought the opioid epidemic, helped older adults age with dignity, rebuilt communities after disasters, and improved the physical and mental well-being of millions of Americans.  

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.

A copy of the court’s order and opinion can be found here and here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Bonta today issued a statement after a judge granted California's request for dismissal to allow it to appeal its case challenging the Trump Administration’s illegal tariffs following a hearing last week. The hearing centered around the Trump Administration’s motion asking that the case be transferred to the Court of International Trade — a motion that California opposed. Rather than transferring the case to the Court of International Trade, California asked the judge to dismiss the case for the purpose of seeking appellate review of the question about where this case should be brought. The dismissal today keeps the case in California and allows California to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which it plans to do immediately. 

“Today, our lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s disastrous and illegal tariffs was allowed to remain in California pending our incoming appeal. We strongly believe this case belongs in federal district court and are pleased the court considered our wishes in dismissing this case so we have the opportunity to seek review. Our argument is straightforward: Trump doesn’t have the authority to impose these destructive tariffs — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act simply does not authorize tariffs,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We remain confident in the strength of our case and look forward to continuing to fight for California's vibrant economy, businesses, workers, and families.”

On April 16, 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. Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom also filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Oregon v. Trump, a case challenging President Trump’s illegal imposition of tariffs. The tariffs challenged under California’s current lawsuit are projected to cost California consumers $25 billion dollars and result in the loss of over 64,000 jobs. The totality of the Trump Administration's tariff regime is expected to cost households approximately $40 billion. 

A copy of the order can be found here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Friday, as part of a coalition of 20 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Shilling v. Trump in support of a challenge to President Trump’s executive order prohibiting transgender servicemembers from serving in the military in any capacity. The plaintiffs in this case are seven active-duty servicemembers, one individual seeking enlistment, and an organizational plaintiff with transgender military members. In March, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a preliminary injunction preventing the order from going into effect; it was later appealed by the federal government, and the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal. In their brief, the attorneys general argue that the executive order undermines our nation’s military, jeopardizes the ability of the National Guard to respond effectively to natural disasters and to ensure the states’ security, and threatens states’ efforts to protect the rights of their LGBTQ+ communities.

“The Trump Administration’s unlawful attempt to single out and discriminate against transgender servicemembers is an insult to all who serve and frankly un-American,” said Attorney General Bonta. “At the California DOJ we remain committed to ensuring that all Californians are free from discrimination and harassment and will continue to uphold and protect the rights of our transgender community.”

California has the nation’s largest concentration of military personnel as well as military bases. If allowed to stand, this executive order would harm California’s interests. California relies heavily on the California National Guard which provides critical services for the state, including responding to national security threats and natural disasters, like the recent devastating fires in Los Angeles. Transgender servicemembers, like all other servicemembers, are qualified individuals who volunteer their lives to service, protecting and providing for our nation in times of need.

In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to affirm the preliminary injunction, arguing that banning transgender individuals from military service will:

• Harm National Guard recruitment efforts, jeopardizing states’ security and readiness.
• Undermine states’ institutions and efforts to uphold and protect the rights of their LGBTQ+ communities.
• Harm the states’ transgender veterans, active servicemembers, and those who wish to serve.
• Weaken the military’s role as an inclusive institution by imposing discriminatory policies.

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

A copy of the brief can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a multistate coalition, filed an amicus brief in Pacito v. Trump in support of a challenge to the Trump Administration's unlawful suspension of refugee admissions and funding under the United States Refugee Assistance Program. In the brief, the coalition urges the U.S. Court of Appeals to affirm the preliminary injunctions issued by the District Court in Washington. This is the States’ third amicus brief in the case. 

A copy of the brief is available here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit to stop the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) from: (1) terminating grants for scientific research that seeks to promote and understand diversity in higher education and the workforce, and (2) imposing a 15% cap on indirect cost reimbursements for research projects. From creating AI technology that predicts weather patterns to protect communities, to developing sustainable solutions for environmental and economic challenges, to making power grids more sustainable, NSF-funded research at American universities has ensured the United States’ status as a global leader in scientific innovation. In the complaint, Attorney General Bonta and 15 other attorneys general ask the court to bar NSF from implementing the terminations and cost cap as arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.

“President Trump wants to make America’s universities second tier with his backwards efforts to slash research funding that has kept us on the cutting edge of science and innovation,” said Attorney General Bonta. “For more than 50 years, Congress has expressly authorized the National Science Foundation to train up the next generation of talent and invest in the infrastructure necessary to keep our position as a global leader in STEM. With President Trump’s latest round of indiscriminate funding cuts, America is poised to fall behind its competitors at a critical moment in the global technology race. We’re suing to stop him.”

At the direction of President Trump, NSF is taking aim at the twin pillars sustaining the United States’ STEM preeminence. First, NSF announced a departure from Congress’s longstanding policy to promote a robust STEM workforce that draws in underrepresented populations. Second, NSF announced that it would slash support for the infrastructure necessary for cutting edge American research. These actions violate the law and jeopardize America’s longstanding global leadership in STEM.  

Since 1980, Congress has maintained that for the United States to maintain its competitive edge, the nation would need to encourage and prepare people from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM to acquire skills and pursue careers in science and engineering fields.  And it has directed, empowered, and funded NSF to carry this policy out – with significant success. Between 1995 and 2017, the number of women in science and engineering occupations, or with science or engineering degrees, doubled; minorities, meanwhile, went from representing about 15% of those groups to about 35%.  

To conduct NSF research, universities must maintain and staff substantial infrastructure, such as cutting-edge laboratories, advanced computer systems and networks, appropriate security, and specialized heating or cooling systems. Because the costs associated with such infrastructure often are not attributable solely to one federally sponsored research project, the federal government negotiates indirect cost rates that ensure research grants are sufficient to actually sustain university research efforts. By indiscriminately slashing indirect cost rates, NSF is repeating the unlawful practices of the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy, which districts courts have already enjoined.  

In California, millions of dollars in funding are at risk across the California State University, University of California, and public community college systems. Many innovations — like the internet, GPS, and MRI technology — trace their origins to research initially funded by NSF. Without NSF funding, many California colleges and universities will be forced to substantially reduce or stop altogether potentially groundbreaking programs and research projects.

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

A copy of the complaint is available here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granting a preliminary injunction in a multistate lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful mass firing of U.S. Department of Education employees and the transfer of core statutory functions to other departments. These actions have devastated the Department of Education’s ability to meet its statutory obligations across numerous programs — direct funding for K-12 education, student aid, services for students with disabilities, civil rights enforcement, vocational training, and more.      

“As long as the Trump Administration persists in violating the law, we will continue to hold him accountable,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The firing of Department of Education employees and outsourcing of core statutory functions, like the administration of federal student loans, violate the Administrative Procedure Act and are unconstitutional. I am encouraged by the court's ruling today restoring fired Education Department employees to their positions while our case progresses. We will continue to fight to ensure the unlawful and absurd dismantling of the Department of Education is reversed — permanently. Our students deserve better.”     

On March 11, the Department of Education initiated a mass termination impacting nearly 50% of the Department’s employees, as part of the Trump Administration’s “final mission” to dismantle the Department. The mass firings were not accompanied by any reasoning to explain why these employees — and indeed, some whole teams — were targeted. The rationale is nevertheless clear — the Trump Administration believes the Department should not exist and is using these firings as a tool in furtherance of that goal. President Trump’s directive for Education Secretary Linda McMahon to take all necessary steps to dismantle the Department is further evidence that the firings are part of a broader effort to undermine the Department’s ability to carry out its most vital, congressionally-mandated functions. These steps include transferring the administration of federal student loans to the Small Business Administration, which recently fired 40% of its workers, and of special needs and nutritional programs to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.    

A copy of the decision is available here.