California sued the Trump administration for the 100th time in under two years on Thursday, challenging the practice of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arresting people for alleged civil immigration violations at or near state courthouses.
Challenging Courthouse Arrests and the Rule of Law
According to California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, these arrests violate the Constitution, severely undermine the rule of law, and infringe upon the rights of defendants, witnesses, victims, and other individuals involved in judicial proceedings. Bonta argued that witnesses and victims are frequently too intimidated to participate in legal proceedings.
“We’ve seen serious criminal charges dropped and entire cases jeopardized because victims and witnesses are too scared to come to the courthouse to testify,” Bonta said. “Our justice system cannot function this way.”
The latest legal challenge marks a milestone in relations between the state and federal government. Bonta characterized the volume of litigation as a reflection of Trump’s nearly unbridled lawlessness rather than political interference, noting that the administration has consistently bypassed constitutional boundaries.
The White House rejected the claims as baseless and misguided. White House spokesperson Lauren Bis maintained that the administration’s policies have been consistently upheld as lawful by federal courts despite an unprecedented number of lawless injunctions.
The Operational Impact on California Courts
Federal agents resumed civil immigration arrests near courthouses following an ICE memorandum issued in May 2025. Under this guidance, agents gained the authority to carry out civil immigration enforcement operations in or around courthouses whenever they possess credible intelligence indicating that the targeted foreign national will be present at a specific location.
State court officials tracking federal enforcement activities reported 30 people taken into custody in June, 29 in July, 19 in August and 14 in September. Legal practitioners across the state have observed immediate consequences on active litigation.
Alejandro Barraza, a criminal defense and immigration attorney, said he has witnessed the effect firsthand, noting that the victims are losing, his clients are losing their rights to due process, and everyone is losing.
Barraza noted instances where defendants chose to accept guilty pleas rather than exercise their right to a jury trial due to fear of federal enforcement actions outside courtrooms. In June, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts in San Francisco struck down the expanded courthouse arrest policies nationwide, though the Trump administration is appealing the ruling.
Legislative Pushback and Broader Legal Strategy
California lawmakers responded by strengthening state protections. Gov. Gavin Newsom approved legislation that enhances safeguards against civil arrests for individuals traveling to, participating in, or departing from courthouses for legitimate reasons, though valid judicial warrants remain exempt.
Bonta emphasized that state-level legislation remains necessary because the Trump administration thinks that no state law applies to them. That friction was underscored when the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals prohibited the enforcement of a state statute that would have mandated federal immigration personnel to show identification while operating within the state.
Independent legal experts point out that executive branch expansion under successive presidential administrations has increasingly driven state attorneys general into court. During Trump’s first term, California sued the Trump administration more than 120 times, while Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton sued the Biden administration just over 100 times in four years.
Michael McConnell observed that while many of California’s legal challenges have been legally meritorious due to administrative overreach, the use of taxpayer funds for ideological lawsuits remains a point of debate.
Bonta maintained that his office will continue filing legal challenges whenever federal policies violate established laws and harm California residents.
