Thank you, all, for tuning into my live video with
! Join me for my next live video in the app.
Below, please find a lightly edited transcript of our conversation.
LAW DORK: The people are starting to come in. We are very lucky to have some time to chat with California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is here with us today and is one of the roughly half of the attorneys general across the country who are of The democratic persuasion and have been extremely busy with litigation, and as we're going to talk about pre-litigation investigations, strategizing and just probably a lot of looking ahead and figuring out what you need to be prepared for going going down the path. And I think just to to start off, I wanted to raise the fact that just just yesterday, as as we were nailing down everything on the specifics of this, and I started looking into what I wanted to talk with you about, as is often the case these days, whatever had happened over the weekend that I was initially planning on leading off with, decided that you all were filing a new lawsuit, and so I wanted to talk with you about that. This is, which is now fitting, and I'm sure you'll want to talk about, more of a pattern with this administration of taking long standing federal grants and sort of trying to change the way that they're operating to the advantage of their political aims. And this was specifically DOJ is Victims of Crime Act grants. What? What happened that that led to this litigation?
ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB BONTA: First of all, Chris, thanks for having me. I'm honored to be with you. The lawsuit that you're referencing is our 39th lawsuit in 30 weeks. We brought more than one lawsuit a week, because that's how blatantly and brazenly, consistently and frequently the Trump administration has been violating the law. Our goal is to never sue him, because that would mean he's complying with the law and the Constitution, but we will be non-negotiable in bringing him to court, taking him to court if and when he breaks the law and violates the Constitution and he did it again that led to the basis of our lawsuit that we filed yesterday, challenging the unlawful conditions put on the Victims of Crime Act funding, which is funding that was put in place 45 years ago under President Ronald Reagan, when there was a finding at the national level, federal level, based on investigation and research and study that we're not we were not doing enough for the victims of crime in the United States. And so about a billion dollars a year goes out to states, over 100 million to California alone, to help victims of crime, people who have been the victims of domestic violence or sexual assault or gun violence, who are on the journey to heal and who need counseling and trauma informed care, who need shelter or food or clothing, who some need to pay for funeral or burial expenses, and Trump put an unlawful condition requiring states to participate in immigration enforcement against their 10th Amendment rights, and in violation of the separation of powers, this is not a condition that Congress put on the funding. It is him being anti-victim, turning his back on victims, on people who have suffered the most horrendous, painful, tragic experience they'll ever experience in their lives, something that most of us can't even imagine, and the funding that is provided to them, he is threatening to withhold treating them as political pawns in this game he has. He did the same thing with the brave men and women who serve in the Marines and in the National Guard, deploying them as his personal army on American soil, inappropriately. We took him to court yesterday, 21 different attorneys general, all Democratic, by the way, not one single Republican attorney general lifting a finger to stand up for the victims in their state, instead cowering in the corner, being craven and feckless and hoping, I think, secretly, drafting behind our work so that we can be successful and their victims can get services, but they will not stand up to Donald Trump. Instead, they are bending the knee. But we brought this lawsuit in the District of Rhode Island yesterday, and this is about attorneys general standing up for the rule of law, standing up for victims, and standing up for democracy.
LAW DORK: I think that leads me to — you sort of highlighted this idea of the split between the Democratic and Republican AGs, which is both surprising and not, depending on how you look at it. It is sort of remarkable that some of these actions that like certainly, if a Democratic presidential administration took the action, they would be all over it. But, but also just generally, some of these cuts have been traumatic to state interests, to these precious states' rights that we've heard about for so long, to local control. But then you said at the end, this idea that they are hoping to get the benefit from that. Can you talk about how that is playing out? What do you mean by that? I think both of us know what that means. How is that actually playinh out?
BONTA: Sure, you know, earlier this year, before a major Supreme Court decision which changed the law on this issue, Democratic attorneys general were able to go to court and seek relief when the Constitution was violated or laws broken, and we would often get universal injunctions, meaning the action of the federal administration was blocked, and it was blocked nationwide, in all instances. And Republican states would benefit from the action and work of Democratic attorneys general, even though they never showed up, didn't lift a finger, didn't go to court. There was a recent case that arose out of our birthright citizenship case, where we challenged an executive order that tried to strip away a constitutional right that is right there in the 14th Amendment in the citizenship clause — the idea that if you're born on American soil, you're a US citizen. And that case went up to the US Supreme Court, not on the substantive issue of whether birthright citizenship is a constitutional right, but on the issue of whether universal injunctions are things that courts can provide as a remedy, and they they said no. They said that the parties who go to court can get relief. They can get complete relief, and sometimes that could be a nationwide injunction under certain circumstances, but generally, if you don't go to court now, you don't get relief. And so I had always thought that on all of our cases, up to that point, the Republican attorneys general were secretly cheering us on and hoping we'd be successful so they didn't have to publicly oppose Trump but would still benefit from us blocking the withholding of funding or the stripping away of rights for the people in their states, but now they can't. They're going to have to do their job or else answer to their constituents, and when their constituents ask them, "Why are you letting my constitutional rights be stripped away? Why are you letting critical funding for Medicaid or food or childcare or college programs or housing be taken away from me?" They're gonna have to answer, and they're not going to have good answers, and so their cowardice and their cravenness will be fully exposed.
LAW DORK: And that was that was certainly clear early on when it came to the funding cases — that we saw in these funding cases — that they clearly were wanting the advantage of that, they didn't want to have their funding cut, and yet they weren't needing to bring the litigation at all.
BONTA: That's right. And you know, the second case we brought early on in the Trump administration was a challenge to an Office of Management and Budget memo that sought to withhold $3 trillion nationwide to all states, about $168 billion to California alone. And we worked through the night, after we caught wind of that memo late in the evening and filed a complaint the next morning, and were able to block it as an unlawful attempt to violate the separation of powers and infringe upon Congress's authority to appropriate funding and to have the power of the purse. And the red states benefited from that, although they did nothing.
LAW DORK: You mentioned the birthright citizenship case. Now that was obviously, as you said, that the case that the underlying case that led to this change in universal injunctions. But in that case, as you alluded to, the states that had brought the litigation had done something a little different, and had said that in order to get complete relief, you needed a nationwide injunction because people have the right to travel and so Californians are going to give birth in states that might not be subject to this litigation, and people are going to move into California, and you're going to end up having a completely unworkable patchwork of who is a citizen and who is not, who is subject to this order and who is not. And I just want to read, after this Supreme Court decision came out, you went back to court and defended the nationwide injunction and the judge in your case said, "For the foregoing reasons, no workable, narrower alternative to the injunction issued originally would provide complete relief to the plaintiffs in this case. The court therefore declines to modify that injunction." And I just wanted to talk with you a little bit about like, when we got that ruling in June, there was a lot of anger and upsettedness at what the court did, certainly on the nationwide injunction, but a lot of people thought that this meant that the birthright citizenship order was going to go into effect, and here we are, almost a month after the deadline that the court set for when the order was supposed to go into effect. And there are, by my count, four court orders that are limiting it. There's yours, there's the other multistate litigation, and then there are two class action injunctions that are in place. And it seems to me that this time, the Trump Administration Department of Justice is going a lot more slowly. They're not rushing back to the Supreme Court. What's your thought on, sort of where these challenges to this executive order stand, and what you think, if not Trump himself, what the Justice Department is thinking about the next steps in this,
BONTA: I think the United States Department of Justice is doing everything they can to not get the substantive issue of whether birthright citizenship is a constitutional right before any court. They specifically avoided that and did mental gymnastics to avoid it front of the US Supreme Court so only the issue of universal injunctions and relief for the parties before the court was at issue. Every court has that has decided the substantive issue and taken a peek at the merits by issuing injunctions has found what is clear and obvious in the plain and unambiguous text of the US Constitution, in the US Supreme Court interpretation of the citizenship clause — that if you're born on American soil, you're a US citizen, period, full stop. And this is Trump's day one action. He literally got sworn in and inaugurated and lifted up his right hand and swore to defend and uphold the US Constitution, and then later that day put his name onto an executive order that violated the US Constitution. That all the courts have found the same thing and issued injunctions shows what we have always known to be true: This is a no-brainer. This one is black and white. This is clear. Birthright citizenship is a US constitutional right. Period, full stop, end of story. And the US DOJ has taken a lot of L's here, they're going to court and losing a lot. Out of 21 temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions that that we have sought and that a court has ruled on, we've won 19 times. We're winning over 90% of the time. They will lose on this case. I think they know that, so they're trying to delay, drag their feet, avoid judgment day. But Judgment Day is coming, and the Constitutional right of birthright citizenship is a US constitutional right, and courts will affirm that.
LAW DORK: There have been, obviously, so many directions and cases that you've had to go in over over the past six months. You mentioned your success rate. And as much as I'd love to only talk about the successes, I do want to talk about sort of the first big loss that we got from the Supreme Court in these challenges, and that was the case over the mass-cancelation of education department grants, and that that 5-4 decision that was sort of on the shadow docket that got the dissent talking about how we thought the court wasn't supposed to make decisions affecting the merits on such threadbare assertions with no oral arguments. Of course, we later learned that was going to become sort of the conservative majority's best way of giving Trump wins, because they know that further examination would be not as successful. That case, and certainly you've gone forward with other funding challenges since, what happened there in in that Department of Education v. California case, and how have you responded to that case, where the Court said that the challenge, basically, it was a contract case and so therefore it should have been brought under another law called the Tucker Act, and therefore brought in the Court of Federal Claims instead of the way you were bringing it. How has that changed your litigation strategy and what effect has that had?
BONTA: Well, first, I'll say that most of our cases will never get to the US Supreme Court, as most don't. Most cases are decided by federal trial courts, and some may get to an appeal, but most will not get to the US Supreme Court. Critical ones do, of course, and we are well aware that the US Supreme Court not might not see all of our cases the way we see them, and we might get some setbacks, as we had in this case. But what I think the US Supreme Court decision here points out is that there are different procedural pathways to seek relief, and we believe that we were pursuing the right one by going to federal district court. The US Supreme Court disagreed. They thought we needed to go to the Court of Federal Claims, a specialty court, if you will, under a specific act, the Tucker Act, and that's not a substantive loss. That is a procedural shunt, pushing us to another court under another statute, where our merits arguments are still live. And something similar happened in our tariff case that Governor Newsom and I brought, where we brought the case in the Northern District of California, we believe that's the appropriate venue. And the judge there said you should go to the Court of International Trade where, according to that judge, these types of issues are properly brought. And so we live to fight another day. While we disagree and we preserve our rights to disagree, and we will continue to press that we were in the right venue, those aren't substantive losses. Those are just procedural setbacks, and we can pursue the same or similar arguments in a different court, consistent with the appellate court's decision, under a different statute.
LAW DORK: A lot of — unsurprising at this point to anybody who's listening and watching this — a lot of Trump's actions come down to bullying, whether it's against large groups of people, whether it's against individuals who he believes have wronged him, whether it's against businesses. As California's Attorney General, I wanted to just talk with you a minute about one of the areas that has really got my attention, and that's his attack on law firms and lawyers. I know that that you all have gotten involved in some of those cases, the AGs, and you specifically, and I just wanted to ask you — outside of the legal arguments, which obviously have, I mean, for people who don't know, have lost in in every challenge, every law firm that has challenged these orders, judges appointed by presidents of both parties. When you saw those orders, when you saw the Perkins Coie order, when you saw the ones that have followed, what did you as the AG of California, think about that and think about what that means for being an AG, being the top law enforcement officer of a state.
BONTA: It meant to me that you have to fight, that you will only be bullied if you allow yourself to be bullied, and if your rights are violated, they must be vindicated, and you go to court to vindicate those rights. The law firms that you're talking about are attorneys who fight every day for their clients, yet they wouldn't fight for themselves? Instead, they ran to the White House to cut a deal after their rights were violated? No, no, you have to fight. And so big support for Perkins, Coie and my former law firm of Keker and Van Nest, who wrote this great op-ed encouraging other law firms to fight, and saying, "If we're not going to fight, who will," and that's the spirit. And I think the folks who capitulated and acquiesced, they may have buyer's remorse on that, as they've seen others fight and win. But it is the law working, and the court system working, and the rule of law working, exactly as it's supposed to. If your rights are violent, you go to court, you make your case, you argue the law, and you present the facts, and you win. And so I'm grateful for the law firms who are fighting, others who are fighting. It's time to fight and stand up for our rights. Bullying, what I call Trump's soft power — intimidation, scaring people, making them think they have to take a risk, fooling them that they are breaking the law. For example, when you know when they he calls Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs discriminatory when they're the programs that tackle discrimination, they're not discrimination themselves. But folks, they're not sure, and they're frozen, and they worry, and it's scary to have the federal government going after you. I get that, but we've tried to give them support. We've provided guidance saying DEI does not violate the law — diversity, equity and inclusion — and, and I've heard from many people who said, "That's helpful to us, that helps us understand our rights and reminds us what we knew, but what was cast into doubt — that we're not violating the law and we're doing the right thing." So it's time to fight and step up, and AGs are doing that. I'm proud to be part of a group of 23 attorneys general going to court, going to the mat, not allowing Trump to violate the law and trespass on the Constitution, and we got a full tank of gas, tons of energy, 39 lawsuits in in 30 [weeks], and we're ready for more.
LAW DORK: I'm in DC. I'm literally here, blocks away from our own National Guard engagement here. Where do things stand? After, after trial in, in your case based on the deployment of National Guard to LA. Obviously different laws are involved, but I know that you just finished your trial, we had a court case filed by the DC AG on Friday when AG Bondi overstepped on her part. Where do things stand with your with your trial? Even when I mention the DC case, people immediately go to ask like, "So how does this relate to what's going on in California?"
BONTA: We finished a trial last week in the Northern District of California, a three-day trial in front of Judge Breyer on the issue of whether the 4,000 deployed National Guardspeople and 700 Marines in LA were violating the Posse Comitatus Act, meaning that they were military involved in civilian law enforcement, and we believe we made a really strong case. I'm proud of my team. They presented a strong legal argument, strong facts, right? Words and testimony right out of the mouth of military leaders, including Major General Sherman, who acknowledged through their testimony that the military on the ground was involved in civilian law enforcement in different forms — in perimeter support, in blockades, in traffic enforcement, in immigration enforcement. The military were embedded with ICE on immigration enforcement operations 75% of the time in the weeks after their deployment. Oftentimes, when they assessed the operation before they executed it, they determined that there was little to no risk and there was no need to have to protect the personnel. We have really dramatic photos of military blocking and stopping the free movement of Americans, either pedestrians or motorists. So we are hopeful and optimistic and confident in the court order that will come. We went into the case feeling confident about what the evidence will show. All the evidence has been submitted and arguments made, we remain confident, and we believe that Judge Breyer will issue an order in the coming days that says that the President, with the deployment of the military in LA, violated the Posse Comitatus Act. And DC is no less disturbing. LA was first, but DC shows it wasn't last, and that there will be more potential deployments of military in American cities on American soil. DC has some unique laws there, and the Commander in Chief of the National Guard is the president under the law of DC, and is a local rule law. But it's no less disturbing and very problematic. And Trump has also suggested that he would be deploying more troops in Chicago and in Oakland and other places — all of which, by the way, are deep blue, Democratic cities and that is completely intentional on his part.
LAW DORK: And also, there was a news story that highlighted the fact in its image used that they were all cities led by Black mayors —
BONTA: Yes.
LAW DORK: — which I'm sure was not accidental, given Trump's proclivities. While I have you, I think a lot of people are paying really close attention to what's going on in Texas with redistricting, and what Governor Newsom is talking about doing in California. What is your role in that and what do you have to say about those questions and where we should be watching for you as and if that proceeds?
BONTA: My formal role as California Attorney General will be to defend against any lawsuits that may come if the legislature and the governor put a proposition on the ballot and it's challenged. We actually got a lawsuit filed today, which has been referred to us by a client agency. We will also write the title and summary for a proposition if a proposition is passed by the legislature and is to be put on the ballot. And I will say that Governor Newsom is fighting and fighting hard. He is leading this effort. He is working with the legislature. They are the ones who will put any proposition on the ballot. But it's important to note here that Trump started this when he reached out to Governor Abbott, looking for five districts that he needed — just like he called the Secretary of State in Georgia after 2020 looking for 11,000 votes. So, Trump started this, and Governor Abbott started this, and Texas started this, and Republicans started this, and California is trying to end this — and trying to block this abuse of power, this attempt to rig the outcome of the midterms when they see what's coming that the midterms are going to be something that favors the Democrats. And the proposition, as Governor Newsom has described it, has a trigger in it, where the five districts in California that he is considering adding through the maps only go into place if Texas or another red state manipulates their map. So it's an attempt to blunt and neutralize that effort. It's defense and response. It also moves us back to our independent redistricting commission in 2030 after the next Census, and most importantly, it goes directly to the people and lets them decide. It's not legislators in some smoky back room appearing with these maps and saying, "here they are," but they are going to go through a transparent process and be put in front of the voters of California to decide. So I think a lawful, principled approach that Governor Newsom is supporting, and he's asking the legislature to support that will be put in front of the voters and then an important response to this attempt to rig the midterm elections by the Republicans and by Trump.
LAW DORK: We could go on forever. Trump this week raised this issue about mail-in voting and election machines. You've got these questions over these outstanding subpoenas challenging provision of gender-affirming care for transgender minors. DOGE lawsuits are still out there. Just yesterday, a federal judge granted class certification to figure out, finally, if Elon Musk was the de facto head of DOGE. You've got this violence at the CDC, the shooting at the CDC. When you're looking at sort of the multi-level attacks on the rule of law, on norms, on governmental systems, on the elections. What is your biggest concern as we're looking forward, and what should people be looking to do themselves to support the rule of law?
BONTA: Our North Star when we get involved is the rule of law — is the law violated, and that's when we sue. And so we don't choose our cases. They choose themselves based on if the law has been violated or the Constitution trampled on, and the case is ripe and California has been hurt, then then we sue. But, you know, the President of the United States is probably the most powerful person in the world with their actual given official power that they do have, but he regularly attempts to grasp and seize power that he does not have. He wants Congress's power, the power of the purse, the power to appropriate. He wants the state's power. He wants to tell us how to run our elections and how to provide health care and how to deploy our limited law enforcement resources. He questions judges and doesn't like courts that interpret the law in a way that's not the way he would like based on the outcome. And so it's this trespassing on the Constitution, this undermining of the Constitution, that is most disturbing — and that it's so consistent and so brazen. He keeps doing the same thing over and over again. He's a repeat offender. He keeps trying to exercise the power of the purse when Congress has that power, not him. He keeps trying to trample upon states' rights when he can't. And it's high volume, high speed, it's flood the zone. And so it's important for everyone to push back in every way possible. And the 3 Cs are really important right now — the courts, crowds and courage. Courts, crowds and courage. Courts are where we're going to seek relief. We're getting it regularly, as I mentioned. Winning, often. Protecting $168 billion of funding that Trump illegally tried to withhold from California. We need people to show up and show out when it's time, as consistently and often as we can, whether it be, No Kings or Hands Off. But people power is the most potent power that there is, and we need to demonstrate it.
LAW DORK: I think we saw that in DC this past week, when, as soon as there were efforts to sort of set up checkpoints that were clearly unconstitutional, people showed up right away — and eventually the law enforcement were just like, "This is going to be pointless," because we learned that people had actually gone up the street with signs telling people to avoid that road. It was just a perfect example of that, that crowd part.
BONTA: And it's contagious and it's inspiring and it gives other people hope and gives other people courage. Courage is just so important. Fight for your rights. Don't let yourself be bullied. Don't let your rights be trampled on. Stand up, push back. Defend the Constitution, defend the rule of law, defend the future of this most incredible nation in the history of the world. It's worth fighting for. Every generation must fight for it. It's time to fight, and everyone has power, so don't be hopeless because we're not helpless. We all have the agency and the ability and the power to fight back. And if we all do it together, it'll be a reminder that the bosses of Trump are not his billionaire buddies or greedy corporations. It's you and me and us, the people. A government of, for, and by the people. We are the boss of Donald Trump and the people in government, not the other way around.
LAW DORK: Well, we will see, as the litigation continues, and certainly as the Supreme Court gets back into session, but I really appreciate you taking the time today, and I'm sure we will be seeing each other soon enough.
BONTA: Thanks, Chris, thanks for having me. And to everyone watching, thanks for joining. Stay enraged. Stay engaged. Keep fighting.
Share this post