Inside California’s legal fight to stop Trump

Michael Newman, the leader of the civil rights enforcement section in California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, was weary.

Newman and his legal team had labored throughout the weekend, into Monday and overnight into Tuesday, tackling an increasing number of legal disputes against the Trump administration, and they were in dire need of rest.

However, during his drive home, he received news that the administration “slashed half the Department of Education’s workforce,” Newman stated. “And it’s like, ‘Well … that’s unacceptable.’”

Returning to work, alongside others in Bonta’s office, the team filed a new lawsuit by Thursday to prevent the firings, joining forces with other Democrat-led states.

“That’s just a glimpse of what life is like for litigators,” Newman remarked. “Just when you think you can take a break from your laptop, you receive a text saying, ‘Did you catch this latest order that was just issued?’”

For months, the pace of President Trump’s announcements, executive directives, and drastic policy changes has been so rapid and extensive that numerous Trump critics have found themselves overwhelmed and uneasy. They have also lamented the Democratic response as inadequate, uncoordinated, and ineffective, especially within Congress.

Since Trump’s inauguration in January, attorneys in Bonta’s office—and in the offices of Democratic attorneys general across the nation—have been in a full sprint to keep pace and push back. They’ve been meticulously preparing for a long time, which included reviewing litigation from Trump’s first term; paying attention to Trump’s campaign promises; analyzing lawsuits filed against the Biden administration by conservative states; and examining Project 2025, a controversial strategy for the president’s second term.

The outcome has been a barrage of lawsuits contesting Trump’s policies, such as his order claiming to abolish birthright citizenship for children of immigrants born in America, his effort to withhold trillions of dollars in federal funding that Congress had already allocated for programs in California and elsewhere, and his dismissal of federal probationary employees within veterans’ programs, national parks, and other sectors.

They have also filed suits to prevent cuts to National Institutes of Health funding for educational institutions and research organizations, the cancellation of K-12 teacher training and preparation grants, billionaire Elon Musk’s significant but informal influence in the federal government, and access to sensitive data managed by his unrecognized Department of Government Efficiency.

In addition to their legal actions, Bonta and other Democratic attorneys general have backed challenges against attacks on transgender troops, refugees, immigrants, an official from the National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and law firms that have incurred Trump’s ire with their legal activities.

Officials from the Trump administration have defended all policies as fulfilling the president’s commitments to voters. They have dismissed California’s legal challenges as misguided interferences in Trump’s presidential authority and criticized court rulings that hinder or restrict their policies as the actions of liberal “activist” judges.

California filed around 120 lawsuits against the previous Trump administration over four years, commonly achieving favorable outcomes. In just the initial eight weeks of the current administration, Bonta’s office participated in filing eight legal actions, a pace that, if sustained, would lead to over 100 lawsuits against the new administration in its first two years. This does not exclude their support in other legal cases, of which there have been at least six.

In February, Gov. Gavin Newsom enacted legislation allowing for an extra $25 million to fund the state’s legal battles with the Trump administration, along with another $25 million for providing legal services to immigrants.

Bonta stated that his office is not trying to promote a liberal agenda, but rather to uphold the Constitution and federal law—asserting that it is the Trump administration that sets the pace for lawsuits.

“If they choose to stop violating the law, then we’ll cease filing lawsuits,” he remarked. “It’s as straightforward as that.”

‘We’re ready, we’re doing this’

Following Trump’s election victory, Newman—a 46-year-old Los Angeles native and Pepperdine Law alum—gathered his team of civil rights attorneys, paralegals, and others for an encouraging talk. The atmosphere was tinged with sadness and some anxiety, but there was also a sense of certainty, “like, we’re poised, we’re taking action,” he recounted.

“If we’re going to navigate this world, in this country, during this time,” he shared with them, “I believe it’s genuinely empowering for us to be at the forefront in the battle to avert the worst-case scenarios.”

The team began refreshing its arguments from the previous Trump administration and honing in on new policies they anticipated he would introduce, Newman said.

However, there were still many unknowns.

Each new policy necessitates a distinct legal assessment, not only concerning its content and specifics but also the administration’s legal rationale behind it, Newman explained. “It’s not merely about their actions; it’s about their methods,” he stated. “Thus, much requires fine-tuning afterward.”

Additionally, the state must clearly articulate how a federal policy it intends to contest would negatively affect California, a process Newman noted Bonta has been particularly and personally involved in—“making those decisions and determinations himself.”

By Inauguration Day—which coincided with Martin Luther King Jr. Day—attorneys in Bonta’s office were poised to act. They were all tuned into Trump’s speeches that day, “real-time deciphering what the priorities were,” Newman shared.

Bonta remarked that Trump’s “onslaught of executive orders” was clearly designed to provoke “shock and awe,” to “flood the zone” and induce “confusion and chaos”—sufficient to bewilder his administration’s opponents.

However, his team was prepared, he asserted.

Their initial target was Trump’s order claiming to terminate birthright citizenship. It was something Trump had signaled he would pursue, and they—along with other blue states—were confident it was unlawful and subject to nullification in court. They promptly filed a lawsuit the very next day, deeming the order unconstitutional. Judges quickly concurred, halting the order from taking effect.

Another immediate target—the Office of Management and Budget memo asserting to pause trillions of dollars in federal funding—was not anticipated, Bonta noted, making it necessary for them to respond quickly.

Bonta became aware of the memo, released a week after Trump’s inauguration, during his drive home from an event with law students in San Francisco, and found himself unexpectedly caught off guard. “This wasn’t necessarily on our radar that they might want to suspend $3 trillion in essential federal funding overnight,” he reflected.

Text messages and emails began circulating between his leadership team and their counterparts in other Democratic attorney general offices, and they came to a swift consensus that “we had to file something immediately, the next day,” Bonta relayed—meaning some in the team would sacrifice sleep.

That evening is vividly etched in Christina Bull Arndt’s memory, who, in her capacity as chief counsel for special litigation in Bonta’s office, coordinated the states’ response.

The night commenced with emails querying attorneys nationwide if they were prepared for an all-nighter.

Attorneys on the East Coast toiled fervently until around 2 a.m.—11 p.m. in California—and then transferred their efforts to their West Coast colleagues, who continued deep into the morning until the East Coast attorneys resumed, took charge again, and filed the case that day in federal court in Rhode Island, Arndt recounted.

Arndt—57, a UCLA Law graduate who grew up in San Diego—recalled sitting in her home office that night “gazing at the screen with all these individuals from across the country saying, ‘Alright, who’s handling what? We have to accomplish this.’”

It was truly motivating, she expressed.

“This may sound sentimental, and I don’t mind: I collaborate with an incredible group of people who deeply care about what they are doing, who genuinely want the best for Californians and aim to do right by the people of this nation,” she stated. “I am consistently grateful to work alongside these individuals—who simply want to tackle these challenges.”

A federal judge has subsequently blocked the funding freeze, although Bonta’s office continues to urge the court to enforce its ruling more effectively, pointing out failures by the administration to release Federal Emergency Management Agency funding for wildfire recovery.

A legal battle

With Congress solidly under Republican power, opposition to Trump’s numerous novel and legally questionable actions has been largely left to those willing to confront the administration in court—a pursuit more perilous than anticipated.

Trump and his supporters have not only condemned legal decisions against their policies but have demanded that individual judges be impeached for their rulings. Such calls, an extraordinary affront to the rule of law from a presidential administration, elicited a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., yet this has not deterred them.

Trump has also targeted law firms that have assisted clients in challenging him or his agenda, threatening them with repercussions unless they align with his demands. Recently, he shocked the legal community by issuing a presidential memorandum threatening all law firms with severe consequences, including revoked security clearances and other penalties if his administration concludes that they have improperly sued the federal government.

The administration has also sought to restrict the ability of states to file lawsuits against the federal government, including in arguments presented to the Supreme Court concerning the birthright citizenship litigation. Legal experts assert that such state lawsuits have surged under recent administrations of both parties and that there is genuine legal debate over their legitimacy, especially in instances where state rights are not directly involved.

California’s attorney general is the chief law enforcement official in the state, tasked with defending the civil rights and legal and consumer interests of California residents while serving as legal counsel to state officials and agencies, among other responsibilities.

Experts assert that state attorneys general have historically possessed the authority to sue the federal government, especially to contest federal laws or regulations they believe overreach or undermine state statutes. Their legal authority to challenge federal policies for broader issues, such as when they damage or infringe upon the rights of state residents, is less clear, the experts explain.

Tara Leigh Grove, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law who has analyzed state standing in such matters, noted that state attorneys general have been enhancing their litigation capabilities for the last four decades, increasingly contesting the federal government following a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that was interpreted by the legal community as strengthening their standing to do so.

Bonta mentioned he is not surprised by the Trump administration’s challenge to the states’ lawsuit powers given their string of victories against the administration.

“We’re active, we’re organized, and we’re making an impact. We’re obstructing their unlawful acts. We’re advocating for the rule of law and the Constitution, and they resent it, so they seek to diminish our authority and influence,” he stated.

Newman expressed that the attorneys within his civil rights team are ready for the challenge. They are “clear-eyed” regarding the Trump administration’s retaliatory measures—“We are aware of their fixation on adversaries and those who obstruct their path,” he remarked—but remain undeterred.

Such efforts can be “exhausting and frustrating,” he acknowledged, yet they are incredibly fulfilling.

“There’s no greater satisfaction than halting an abuse of power based on the legal principles and strategies you have formulated,” he concluded.