83 lawsuits that are keeping Californians safe
- Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said his legal work has protected about $207 billion in funding for the state.
- The rule of law may be battered and bruised. But so far, it has held, in no small part thanks to Democratic officials such as Bonta.
Eighty-three lawsuits filed against the Trump administration in 18 months, at a cost of more than $20 million.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced those stats this week, part of an annual report to the Legislature on how we’re spending a special fund set aside to combat President Trump’s overreach.
That doesn’t include more than 120 friend of the court briefs the Golden State has written in legal matters brought by others, or the multitude of cases in which the Trump administration has sued California and Bonta’s office is defending us.
That’s a whole lot of litigation. Is it worth it? Are we huffing and puffing for political points, or do all these lawsuits actually do something positive for the average Californian?
Chabria: Prop. 39 would turn Trump conspiracy into California law. It has a chance of passing
A legal fight has broken out around Proposition 39, a proposal to require voters to prove their citizenship at polls with ID. It’s a partisan attempt to recycle the election conspiracy lies of President Donald Trump into California law -- and it has a chance of passing.
You get what you pay for
I’m going to sound like a bus bench ad for the legal profession, but, at this point, “the courts are standing as the only barrier to the president doing anything that the president wants to do,” Hiroshi Motomura, a professor of law at UCLA, told me.
And what the president apparently wants to do is make the poor and vulnerable poorer and more vulnerable. And don’t think there’s a middle-class exemption. In his second term, Trump has attacked healthcare coverage, special education, education in general, reproductive rights, gender rights, the environment, endangered species, immigrants and more.
“The disastrous impact of Trump’s lawlessness isn’t theoretical or hypothetical. It’s not imagined. It is real. It is hurting real people,” Bonta said. “It is hurting Californians, real families, real businesses, real communities every single day.”
You name it, if it’s not rich and connected, it’s probably under attack. President Lyndon B. Johnson launched a very different war on poverty in 1964 with social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Head Start. This new war on poverty seems intent on increasing it, not eradicating it.
It would be nearly impossible for the people affected by these attacks on government services to fight them on their own, said Richard Abel, a professor emeritus of law at UCLA and the author of multiple books on the Trump presidency.
“They don’t know why it’s happening,” he said. “They don’t have access to lawyers. Many of them are undocumented or afraid to mobilize the legal system.”
That leaves the states, which are often the only other entities that have a legal right to sue, because they too are being harmed by the cuts.
So yeah, our $20 million is well spent. Bonta said his legal work has protected about $207 billion in funding. But I’ll argue the true return on investment is California residents who have been protected in ways they don’t even realize.
Risks we don’t even realize
Take Massachusetts vs. Department of Agriculture, one of the cases California is involved in. This is Trump’s attempt to put new rules on USDA grants for food programs including emergency food assistance, school lunches and food stamps. It would tie compliance with his right-wing, discriminatory policies on immigration, gender ideology and diversity issues to receiving those funds.
California and other states sued and won a preliminary injunction stopping them in June — meaning most recipients kept their benefits without ever realizing they were at risk.
Then there’s New York vs. Administration for Children & Families, in which Trump goes after child welfare funds; Washington vs. Department of Education, which attacks mental health grants that help hire school psychologists and counselors; and Illinois vs. Vought, which targets California and three other states run by Democrats for cuts to transportation and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding for no other reason than politics, the states argue.
Food benefits, access to mental health care, lead poisoning prevention. Just a few more things most of us didn’t realize could be at risk for some of us.
In each of those cases, Bonta and the other Democratic attorneys general stopped the federal actions, even if only temporarily. Some of those cases are ongoing, but with restraining orders or injunctions in place.
Then there’s United States vs. Baass, Trump’s attempt to force Michelle Baass, the director of the California Department of Health Care Services, to turn over a bunch of applications for Medi-Cal benefits for the last five years so the federal government can go on a witch hunt for undocumented folks.
Supposedly these applications, which Baass and her agency were subpoenaed for, are needed for an immigration investigation in the Central Valley. California won in court in March, when a judge denied the federal government’s petition to enforce that subpoena.
Now, the feds are appealing to the 9th Circuit — and California continues to fight to protect the privacy and maybe even safety of the residents who just needed medical care, but could see their sensitive information, including addresses, turned over to immigration authorities if Trump had his way.
How could they possibly fight that on their own?
Then there’s a lawsuit in which Trump is trying to prevent California from continuing to give in-state tuition to Dreamers — undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as youngsters.
In battles such as that one, fought because it’s the right thing to do, Motomura sees a benefit greater than just protecting funding.
It forces us to push back against the federal government’s framing that immigration is “about invaders, you know, climbing walls,” Motomura said.
“This is about people who live in our communities,” he said. “And I think that when Bonta claims that space, he’s not just pushing back. He’s saying, ‘Let’s think about this in terms of building stronger communities,’ and I think that’s a significant shift.”
The rule of law may be battered and bruised, and even at times a bit hinky. But so far, it has held — in no small part because of Democratic attorneys general such as Bonta who aren’t just filing lawsuits but have built the staffs and networks to do it effectively. It’s a much larger effort than we give it credit for, but one that has fundamentally protected our everyday lives so well that many have barely noticed the wolves at the door.
I’m sure there will be losses, wolves that crawl through windows, and we will all feel the bite of that. But 83 lawsuits will soon likely be 84, 94, whatever it takes to protect Californians.
Each one is a fight worth having, because every Californian is worth fighting for.
What else you should be reading
The must-read: From decorated U.S. Marine to arrested at Trump golf course: What we know about Jeanine John Taele
The deep dive: The obscure financial maneuver at issue in Dodgers owner probe explained
The L.A. Times Special: New park under neglected 6th Street Bridge stirs up hope, Boyle Heights gentrification fears
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article argues that California’s aggressive litigation campaign against the Trump administration is a crucial safeguard for vulnerable residents, because courts are currently the only effective check on presidential overreach.
- The piece contends that Trump-era policies constitute a war on poverty in reverse, targeting healthcare, education, reproductive and gender rights, immigration and environmental protections, and that lawsuits are necessary to prevent these measures from making poor and marginalized communities even more vulnerable.
- The column highlights that many affected by cuts to food assistance, child welfare, school mental-health services and anti–lead-poisoning programs would never know their benefits were at risk, and portrays state lawsuits as quiet interventions that preserve everyday supports before harm is felt.
- To justify the expense, the article points to Rob Bonta’s reporting that California’s lawsuits and related actions have protected roughly $207 billion in federal funding, far exceeding the tens of millions taxpayers have spent on this litigation[3][13][10].
- The article emphasizes that individuals relying on Medi-Cal and other safety-net programs generally lack the knowledge, legal access or immigration security to challenge federal subpoenas or policy changes on their own, so state attorneys general must act as proxy defenders on their behalf, a role underscored by multistate efforts to safeguard public health and social-service funding[8][15].
- The piece describes California’s resistance to federal attempts to use personal data from welfare and Medi-Cal applicants for immigration enforcement, presenting these suits as efforts to protect privacy, prevent potential targeting of undocumented residents and preserve trust in public programs[4][14][15].
- The article cites legal scholars who argue that litigation over in-state tuition for Dreamers and similar immigration cases helps reframe the debate away from imagery of “invaders” toward neighbors who are part of local communities, and that asserting this narrative through lawsuits strengthens social cohesion and community-building.
- The column credits Democratic attorneys general, including Bonta, with building specialized teams and multistate networks that have produced numerous injunctions, early court wins and, in some instances, complete federal retreats from challenged policies, a pattern echoed in reports of preliminary and final rulings that blocked or reversed Trump administration initiatives[5][10][11].
- Overall, the article portrays the 83 and counting lawsuits as both a moral and practical imperative, asserting that each case is a worthwhile fight because it protects Californians’ daily lives, often in ways residents do not see or fully understand, and suggesting that continued litigation is necessary as new federal actions emerge.
Different views on the topic
- Several Trump administration officials and allies argue that California’s lawsuits are partisan efforts that obstruct a legitimately elected president’s agenda, pointing to the sheer volume of cases as evidence of politically motivated lawfare rather than neutral oversight[5][15].
- Commentators note that critics in and outside California question whether spending tens of millions of dollars on litigation is justified, arguing that those funds could instead directly support schools, healthcare or infrastructure rather than pay lawyers and court costs[13].
- Federal agencies defending the termination or redirection of energy and infrastructure grants contend that these moves reflect presidential authority to realign spending with national priorities, accusing California of trying to lock in prior climate and clean-energy policies through the courts and impede a different economic vision[2][7].
- In disputes over emergency preparedness and homeland security grants, Trump officials insist that tying funding to stricter voter-citizenship verification, paper ballots and post-election audits is necessary to secure elections and combat perceived fraud, and argue that California’s challenges undermine national security and election integrity by resisting uniform standards[1][9][14].
- Supporters of Trump’s efforts to reshape diversity, equity and inclusion requirements in federal contracting argue that purging DEI language and imposing new terms will reduce ideological litmus tests, limit bureaucratic burdens and refocus contracts on merit and efficiency, characterizing Bonta’s lawsuit as a defense of politicized workplace policies[12].
- In fights over immigration-related data sharing and enforcement, administration officials maintain that accessing welfare or health-program records is a legitimate tool for identifying fraud and unauthorized immigration, and contend that California’s resistance shields lawbreakers and hampers consistent enforcement of federal immigration law[4][14][15].
- Proponents of restarting federally regulated oil pipelines and loosening some environmental constraints argue that the Trump administration’s decisions are needed to boost energy production and jobs, criticizing California’s legal challenges as sacrificing economic benefits and energy security for what they view as overly restrictive environmental standards[6][2].
- Some legal analysts caution that frequent state lawsuits against federal actions, even when successful, risk further politicizing the courts and blurring the lines between policy disputes and constitutional claims, warning that this dynamic could encourage future administrations to test the limits of executive power in response[5].
