California is already leading the way in lawsuits against the Trump administration since the president resumed office in January, taking the White House to court over its funding cuts, its rollback of diversity initiatives and its aggressive immigration policies. Yet the office at the forefront of those legal battles is set to expand even further in the coming months.
The state attorney general's office was granted $25 million in supplemental funding in February to help bolster its litigation efforts. But even after filing 15 lawsuits against Trump's team, challenging his administration an average of twice a week in court, that money is still untapped.
"It's not spent," Rob Bonta, California's attorney general, told The Times in an interview at its Washington bureau. "We're completely committed to suing the president whenever we have standing and he's violating the law, and we will."
"If we don't need all the $25 million, we won't use it all," he added. "If we need more, they'll give us more."
Gaining from D.C.'s brain drain
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, with Gov. Gavin Newsom, announces a lawsuit against the Trump administration on April 16. (Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)
Bonta's office is first setting up hiring panels and job listings, a process that will help build out its team to take on new challenges against the administration over the next four years.
Several of California's lawsuits against Trump target his gutting of federal agencies and intimidation of big law firms. And yet, in an ironic twist, the attorney general's office may end up benefiting from the flood of legal talent entering the job market as a result of Trump's tactics.
"The process has started, but the people haven't been hired yet," Bonta said. "We think the folks leaving federal jobs provide a great source of talent to join our office."
Just this week, approximately 70% of the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department accepted buyout offers, gutting an office that had employed nearly 350 people. Attorneys with decades of experience at other federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, are also taking part in mass resignations.
The funding was allocated by Democratic supermajorities in the California Legislature.
"They understand the need to protect California's funding, and future, and rights," Bonta said.
California sees Trump complying with orders
Over 100 days into Trump's presidency, Bonta sees the new administration taking an aggressive stance toward the judiciary — but ultimately complying with court orders, so far.
"I think there's a delta between the American perception of court compliance and what we're seeing," Bonta said. "I think more people in America think there's less compliance than there is. I don't think there's complete, good-faith compliance, but broadly, largely in our cases, they're complying."
Instead, Bonta sees the administration as taking advantage of a legal "gray area" often created by judges and justices issuing orders that are vaguely or poorly written — the sort of manipulation that all litigants engage in at the highest levels. If there were true, outright defiance — which may have occurred or may yet — then judges have the ability to hold individuals in contempt.
"There's a progression of steps between a court order not being complied with preliminarily and being at a constitutional crisis," he said. "There are a number of steps we take to enforce an order when we think it's not being complied with."
The administration has been accused of violating court orders several times since Trump took office.
It slow-walked enforcement of a case in which the Office of Management and Budget was ordered to release assistance to states after attempting to cut it. A judge questioned whether Trump administration officials were in contempt of court after he ordered them to turn around a deportation flight filled with Venezuelan nationals, only for the flight to continue.
And several courts, including the Supreme Court, directed the White House to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man accused of gang ties, back to the United States after the administration deported him despite a standing court order against his removal. The administration has said Abrego Garcia will never return, flouting a judge's orders to document its efforts to get him back.
"I think that we're not at a constitutional crisis yet. I'm not saying we might not be. I disagree with probably a majority of my colleagues in that position," he said. "But I think there needs to be a very clear U.S. Supreme Court order that this administration acknowledges their understanding of, and then refuses to comply with. And I don't think that's happened yet."
Early test coming on judicial power
Out of all of California's cases making their way through the courts, Bonta said one particular case — challenging Trump's attempts to undo birthright citizenship — could soon provide some clarity from the Supreme Court, not on the merits of the case itself, but on a critical underlying question of whether judges at the district level are allowed to issue injunctions that halt the administration's policies nationwide.
Trump is hardly the first president to express frustration over this practice, which is often used by the party out of power to challenge administrative actions. But the ability of district court judges to continue issuing them will finally be put to the test soon in the birthright citizenship case.
"The U.S. Constitution applies to every American, period, no matter what state you're in," Bonta said, explaining California's defense of the practice.
"The substantive, underlying issue is really strong for us," he continued. "And whether you should have a national injunction on a constitutional right — it seems obvious. Either everyone has the right, or no one has the right. It's not that red states don't enjoy a constitutional right, but the blue states brave enough to sue do."
On Capitol Hill, congressional Republicans are attempting to limit the powers of district judges through legislation. A bill authored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, and passed by House Republicans would do just that: the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, his office said, would stop "single district court judges from solely determining national policy — an authority the Constitution reserves for Congress, the President, and, in limited instances, the Supreme Court."
Bonta dismissed Issa's proposal, expressing doubt it would overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate. But even if it did pass, Bonta said, he would expect his office to sue over its constitutionality.
"I'd have to look at it more closely, but if there's a legal defect to it, yes," Bonta said. "It could be a separation of powers violation. Let's say Congress says, 'the Trump administration keeps losing in court. We're not happy with that.' And then they say, 'OK, the courts can't issue any more court orders.' They could pass it with a majority in both houses, they could pass the filibuster, Trump could sign it, and it's completely unlawful."
"The Constitution has the final word on that — Article III defines the judicial branch — and they have power. Congress can't take it away," he added. "I think it's likely a candidate for being constitutionally defective."
What else you should be reading
The must-read: California has sued Trump 15 times in his first 100 days. Where do those cases stand?
The deep dive: 'Disrupt, break, defund': Trump's imperial first 100 days
The L.A. Times Special: Trump signs orders ramping up immigration showdown with sanctuary cities and states
More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
