Trump administration sues California to block state from counting alleged noncitizen mail-in ballots

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The Trump administration sued California election officials Thursday, asking a judge to bar the state from counting mail-in ballots for next month’s midterm elections from people the federal government has identified as “likely” noncitizens until their immigration status can be confirmed.

The lawsuit comes after the Justice Department said California officials failed to meet a 48-hour deadline to review a password-protected thumb drive that contains a list of 20,000 names. The federal government says those are likely noncitizens who were sent ballots to participate in the Nov. 3 election, although the secretary of state said the administration has provided no evidence to support that claim. The state mails ballots to all registered voters.

The lawsuit follows a letter sent earlier this week by a top Justice Department official who threatened potential legal action if California didn’t comply.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The federal government didn’t specify where the 20,000 voters were concentrated, but the list was sent directly to Los Angeles County Registrar Dean Logan on Tuesday, his office confirmed in a statement. His office said the list contained names of voters throughout California, not just Los Angeles, even though Logan is the only county election official named as a defendant in the lawsuit. He doesn’t have jurisdiction over ballots outside Los Angeles County.

In a statement Thursday, Logan said his office can’t withhold ballots or refuse to count them “based solely on unverified allegations.”

Over 23 million people are registered statewide, and there are a handful of competitive congressional races in other California districts that could determine which party has control of the U.S. House for the final two years of President Donald Trump’s term.

Expert says lawsuit could set stage for false election claims

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber said in a letter to the Justice Department that the federal government hasn’t provided evidence to support its allegation that 20,000 names on the state’s voter rolls are of noncitizens. She referenced an instance in which the federal government initially alleged nearly 16,000 possible noncitizens were listed on Nevada’s voter rolls, but the state determined that all the people flagged were, in fact, U.S. citizens.

She also noted that voting is already underway in the state. Weber, a Democrat, said the Justice Department was “demanding unprecedented measures that threaten thousands of Californians’ right to vote, based on unverifiable information or methodology that you still fail to explain or provide.”

California’s elections are in “full compliance” with federal law, she added.

David Becker, an election law expert who heads the Center for Election Innovation and Research, called the Justice Department’s lawsuit “fairly frivolous.”

“If they were seeking to work in good faith to clean up the voter list that they believed had issues, they would have done this months ago in a much different fashion,” Becker said. “However, it does raise questions as to whether or not the sole purpose of this is to set the stage for false claims about elections.”

List of alleged illegal voters delivered on a thumb drive

Logan said his office received the thumb drive along with a “hand written note providing a password” to access the list of alleged noncitizens on the voter rolls. He said he did not consider the thumb drive a secure device. The secretary of state’s office said the password was written “on a sticky note.”

Click here to read the full article at AP News

3 Californians sue ICE officers hours after Newsom signs bill greenlighting lawsuits

Three U.S. citizens arrested and detained by immigration agents are the first Californians to sue federal officers under the No Kings Act, hours after it was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday.

All three had filed earlier lawsuits against the federal government, but amended their complaints to reflect new claims under the law.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Newsom signed Sen. Scott Wiener’s Senate Bill 747 into law early Tuesday as part of a slate of bills designed to combat the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. Hours later, Cary Lopez’s attorney updated the lawsuit she filed against Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Los Angeles federal court to make use of the new legislation and demand monetary damages. Lopez was nine months pregnant when ICE agents pinned her belly against a truck in Los Angeles County on June 8, 2025. “You wanna get killed?” an agent said to her during the arrest, according to the lawsuit.

Video of the incident provided to the Chronicle by Lopez’s attorney shows onlookers pleading with agents wearing face coverings to let Lopez go. She was detained and held in chains for about eight hours. The emotional distress sent her into premature labor, the lawsuit says.

“The Constitution follows federal officers onto every street and into every business and neighborhood in California,” Lopez’s attorney, Maria F. Garcia Baldizzone, said in a statement. “A badge does not give anyone permission to violate the rights of the people they encounter. But those rights mean little if the people harmed have no meaningful way to enforce them. The No Kings Act gives our clients another path to demand accountability.”

Lopez’s lawsuit argues her constitutional rights were violated when she was detained in Hawthorne (Los Angeles County) without probable cause. The other two amended complaints filed by Garcia Baldizzone and attorneys with Carrillo Law Firm on Tuesday make similar legal arguments under Wiener’s new law, which allows Californians to file civil lawsuits against any federal agent for violations of their constitutional rights.

Click here to read the full article in the SF Chronicle

Advocates sue OpenAI over Hugging Face hack under California anti-hacking law

The lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court is an early legal challenge to OpenAI over the autonomous hack of Hugging Face.

SAN FRANCISCO — A tech safety group is using a California anti-hacking law to sue OpenAI over the breach of artificial intelligence platform Hugging Face.

The complaint, filed Tuesday afternoon in San Francisco Superior Court, appears to be the first against OpenAI over the incident, which was disclosed in July as the earliest known example of artificial intelligence agents escaping human control to access the open internet, autonomously hack another company and scheme to cover their tracks.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The lawsuit comes from Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology, a nonprofit focused on making AI and other technological advancements safer for the world. The group said that, to its knowledge, it has not been the victim of an autonomous hack, but nonetheless is seeking an injunction to stop OpenAI’s technology from accessing third-party computer systems without authorization.

LASST argues that the group has the right to sue under the state’s unfair competition law. It’s claiming that OpenAI violated California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, which prohibits intentionally accessing and obtaining information from computers without authorization.

“There’s nothing magic about it that means that this law applies to this instance and wouldn’t apply to the others,” Tyler Whitmer, LASST’s founder, told POLITICO of the Hugging Face hack. “I would say that includes incidents from other AI companies as well. I wouldn’t just limit that to OpenAI’s incidents.”

CEO Sam Altman on Friday called the Hugging Face incident the most severe one OpenAI has discovered. It involved a “swarm” of several hundred AI agents that exchanged over 70,000 secret messages about how to cheat their way through a common cybersecurity evaluation, according to an independent review.

“Hugging Face was a serious incident and we’ve taken a series of actions in response to it, but this lawsuit is completely without merit,” OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri said in a statement.

OpenAI has been conducting a broader review of its models’ activities following the Hugging Face incursion and, after the cases involving U.S. government websites became public, it announced a pause on training of the company’s latest AI models.

Whitmer said after Hugging Face indicated it wouldn’t be taking legal action and Nvidia announced an agreement to acquire the startup earlier this month, he decided it was important that “somebody do it.”

Click here to read the full article in Politico

California files another lawsuit against Trump administration over offshore wind

State officials challenge withdrawal of $111 million floating offshore project in Morro Bay

Another round in the legal battle between California and the Trump administration over offshore wind projects has commenced.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Energy Commission filed a 54-page lawsuit in federal court Tuesday, disputing what they claim was an unlawful buyout that took a major offshore floating wind project in Morro Bay off the table.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The filing marks the second legal complaint the Attorney General’s Office and the energy commission has filed against the Trump administration — and another lawsuit is looming.

Tuesday’s lawsuit challenges a $765 million buyback of four wind leases in locations across the country held by Invenergy, a Chicago-based international power generation company. Announced in June, the deal included the $111 million Even Keel Wind project that had lease rights covering more than 80,000 acres off the Central California coast.

“California is challenging these reckless and illegal backroom deals and holding the companies that participate in them accountable,” David Hochschild, chair of the California Energy Commission, said in a statement.

As of 2:30 p.m., neither the U.S. Department of the Interior nor Invenergy had responded to emails from the Union-Tribune asking for comment on the lawsuit.

When the withdrawals were announced two months ago, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said, “The offshore wind leases were sold under the assumptions that taxpayers would indefinitely subsidize costly, unreliable projects and that no national security concerns were implicated — both assumptions have since been proven false.”

Under the terms of the deal, Invenergy will redirect the money to other energy projects that include developing natural gas power plants in Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri, plus geothermal projects in the West.

An Invenergy executive at the time said the company “is focused on delivering reliable, affordable energy for our customers and supporting disciplined investment at scale.”

This is the second lawsuit California has filed in federal court.

The state attorney general and the energy commission submitted a similar complaint last month, accusing Interior and other agencies of making an “unconstitutional and unlawful” deal in April that saw another company — Golden State Wind LLC — back out of its lease to build a floating offshore wind farm, also in Morro Bay.

Instead, Golden State Wind will be eligible to recover the company’s $120 million investment by spending an equal amount on U.S. oil and gas assets, energy infrastructure or liquefied natural gas projects on the Gulf Coast.

In yet another buyback, German energy multinational RWE in August announced relinquishing offshore wind leases in New York, Louisiana and California as part of a $1.22 billion settlement with the Department of the Interior. One of those projects is the Canopy Offshore Wind Farm in Northern California’s Humboldt County.

Earlier this month, the California Attorney General’s Office sent a “notice of intent to sue” to officials at Interior and other federal agencies, as well as executives at RWE.

With the Invenergy, Golden State Wind and Canopy Offshore Wind Farm projects no longer on the drawing board, there are just two floating offshore lease projects left in California — one in Humboldt Bay and one in Morro Bay.

Click here to read the full article in the SD Union Tribune

 

Bonta defends Paramount settlement: ‘resolves the antitrust concerns’

The settlement ends a fractious two-month legal battle.

LOS ANGELES — Rob Bonta on Monday defended his settlement of an antitrust case with Paramount Skydance that cleared the way for the company to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery and become one of the world’s largest media conglomerates.

The California attorney general, who had joined forces with other states in a lawsuit to block the transaction, argued the settlement would soften the impacts of media consolidation even as he maintained he did not believe the companies should merge.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

“Some of you who may be watching this may have wanted a different outcome. I understand that,” Bonta said at a press conference in Los Angeles. But he argued he’d reached a settlement capable of “providing more film production that protects Hollywood workers and their livelihoods, that places guardrails allowing for robust cable negotiations, that protects competition and creates more choice for consumers about what this merger could mean for the industry.”

It “resolves the antitrust concerns at the heart of our lawsuit against the company and Warner Brothers,” he said.

The settlement ends a fractious two-month legal battle that was seen as a major test of California’s ability to exert regulatory power over a high-profile business deal that Donald Trump signaled he wanted completed — and a defining moment for Bonta, whose national profile had risen during the dispute.

Paramount agreed in a consent decree to increase spending on domestic film production by at least $300 million annually, produce 30 movies in each of the first two years of the deal and establish an independent board of journalists to monitor the editorial independence of CNN and CBS News, both of which would be owned by the new media conglomerate.

The agreement came as a disappointment to opponents of the transaction, including the Block the Merger Coalition, which cast the settlement as a sweetheart deal for Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison and his father, Oracle Co-Founder Larry Ellison, who is financially backstopping the acquisition.

“This is a bad deal for the future of film, entertainment, independent journalism, and a strong democracy in this country,” the coalition said in a statement. “We are disappointed and angry that the interests of average Americans have been trampled to benefit oligarch billionaires.”

The Writers Guild of America in a statement predicted the merger would still be harmful to the industry but that the union “must contend with the reality of forging ahead alone, with no backing from government enforcers.”

David Ellison in a statement thanked California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who had reportedly expressed concerns about the states’ lawsuit, “for his support throughout this process.”

Click here to read the full article on Politico

 

California teachers union sues state over $3.9 billion in delayed Prop. 98 funds

California Teachers Association filed a lawsuit against the state Tuesday over its decision to withhold Proposition 98 funding from schools in the 2024-25 and 2025-26 school years. The lawsuit followed the Legislature’s July approval of a revised state budget that deferred $3.9 billion in Prop. 98 payments, which has drawn criticism from education groups and districts across California.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

“These funds were guaranteed to public schools through Proposition 98, enshrined in the California constitution for nearly 40 years,” the union said in a news release. As California school districts face mounting pressure from declining enrollment and rising costs, many have built their budgets around expected state funding while facing uncertainty over when the Prop. 98 money will arrive. Sacramento City Unified is among the districts that have opposed the deferral as it grapples with one of the state’s most severe fiscal crises, with a structural deficit of $222 million. The district’s latest long-term plan to avoid insolvency assumes it will receive $22.7 million in each of the 2027-28 and 2028-29 school years from the $3.9 billion in withheld Prop. 98 funding.

Other financially strained districts, including Los Angeles Unified, have also made staffing cuts amid budget shortfalls, laying off hundreds of employees. In May, the union criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget was unconstitutional, warning that withholding the money would further destabilize schools as thousands of educators throughout the state faced layoffs.

Click here to read the full article at the Sacramento Bee

California and the federal government battle over hospice fraud, as victims lose coverage and care

LOS ANGELES (AP) — At 71 and a few years into retirement, Linda Henry felt like she was in good health, and only went to her doctor in Southern California for the occasional checkup.

So it was a shock when she found out in 2024 that she had been enrolled in hospice, a specialized end-of-life care usually provided to people with six months or less to live. A Medicare worker told her the system said she had heart failure.

Henry was a victim of rampant fraud in the hospice industry, a problem that’s been especially extreme in California, where scammers have taken advantage of historically weak government oversight. Fraudsters have created fake hospices and tricked people into enrolling, or stolen people’s identities to bill Medicare for hospice services.

California’s been a focus of the Trump administration’s crackdown on fraud in federally-funded health programs, with more than 1,000 California hospices removed from Medicare since early 2025. Federal officials estimate LA County alone accounts for an estimated $3.5 billion in fraudulent hospice claims.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The state says it’s doing its part to tackle the issue. California has revoked nearly 500 licenses since putting a moratorium on new hospices in 2021 and in June adopted long-awaited emergency regulations that set more stringent criteria for approving new licenses.

Since hospice is a form of palliative care meant for terminally ill patients, once someone enrolls in it, Medicare will not pay for additional medical treatment outside of it, leaving vulnerable seniors to miss out on appointments and be denied crucial care. Meanwhile, millions of taxpayer dollars are being funneled to fraudsters every year, and those who truly need hospice care might not get it if they enroll with a fraudulent hospice operator.

Advocates say they don’t have a clear estimate of how many people like Henry have been unwittingly caught up in fraud, but urge state and federal cooperation.

Hospice fraud has been a major problem in California

In 2026, the state had about 2,100 hospice organizations, down from 2,800 four years prior. New York, which has far more stringent rules for registering a hospice, has just 39, according to its state health department.

A 2022 state audit found rampant fraud and abuse in the system, particularly in LA County. It found dozens of hospice agencies were often clustered in the same building as well as a rapid increase in the number of hospices being established and abnormally high rates of patients being discharged. Hospice is often provided at patients’ homes, meaning one registered hospice can serve patients in numerous locations.

In April, federal prosecutors made arrests in five cases involving hospice fraud in the LA area. A week later, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said 21 people were arrested for a multimillion scheme to use stolen identities to charge for hospice services. His office has filed more than 100 hospice-related criminal cases and secured over 50 hospice-related convictions since 2021.

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Meta to pay $17 billion — and limit ‘likes’ for teens — in social media settlement with states

Meta agreed to pay up to $17 billion and to make changes to its platforms to end a major case on children and social media addiction.

California will receive up to $2.1 billion if the settlement is approved by a judge, according to a statement from the Attorney General Rob Bonta. Meta will agree to a payment of more than $12 billion, with an increase up to the $17 billion over 10 years if other social media companies settle related claims, the New York Times reported.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

A group of 47 states led by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey accused Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, of engineering its products to be addictive to children.

Despite knowing the products could damage kids’ mental health, the attorneys general said, Meta continued to promote them, even as its own research showed harms. The case has been compared to past litigation against Big Tobacco, and was seen as a major test of similar litigation tech companies face around the United States.

“Today, we have secured a settlement with Meta that will make social media less dangerous for our kids and make a world of a difference for children and their families,” Bonta said in the statement.

A Meta spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Opening statements in the suit started just last week in an Oakland federal court, with a weekslong trial anticipated. The case was among the largest in a series of bellwether cases testing claims that major tech companies deliberately marketed products to children, even as those products damaged their mental health.

Earlier this year, Meta and Google were found liable by a Los Angeles jury in a suit that tested similar claims. Meta lost another, similar suit in New Mexico this year as well. But today’s settlement eclipses any legal challenge so far.

Lexi Hazam and Previn Warren, attorneys who have represented families and school districts in other litigation against tech companies, praised the ruling in a statement, calling it “a major step toward holding Meta accountable for the harm its platforms have caused young people.”

Meta continues to face claims from parents and school districts around the country. Google, Snap, and TikTok are among the companies facing similar suits.

“We will not rest until every one of these plaintiffs sees justice for the harms caused by all of the defendants’ platforms,” Hazam and Warren said.

Under the terms of the deal, which still must be approved by a judge, Meta will change how it operates its platforms. The changes would include:

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

California to sue Trump administration again over mail-in voting restrictions

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Monday that California intends to sue the Trump administration again over President Donald Trump’s efforts to impose new restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of the November midterms. The announcement came after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the administration to move forward with key parts of Trump’s March executive order on elections, pausing a lower court ruling that California and other states had previously won. Trump’s order called for the federal government to create state-by-state citizenship lists and for the U.S. Postal Service to impose new requirements on mail-in ballots.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The Supreme Court did not rule on if Trump’s order is legal. Instead, the decision allows the administration to continue pursuing the order while leaving the door open for California and other states to challenge specific policies as they are implemented — setting up another round of litigation just as mail-in voting will begin in some states. “California will be suing AGAIN to block these Orwellian rules from being implemented,” Newsom said in a news release. California and 22 other states, along with Washington, D.C., initially sued the Trump administration in April, arguing that the order illegally interfered with states’ constitutional authority to run elections. A federal judge agreed in June and blocked key parts of the order, finding that Trump had overstepped his authority. The judge also found that the Postal Service did not have authority to control mail-in voting.

Click here to read the full article in the Sacramento Bee

California Sues to Stop One County’s Ban on Most Mail Voting

Shasta County voters had approved a ballot measure that would have heavily restricted voting by mail and imposed photo ID requirements. State officials said the new rules were illegal.

California officials have sued to block a measure approved by Shasta County voters that would end most mail voting, require voters to present government-issued photo identification to register and to vote, and mandate the hand-counting of ballots.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

In their lawsuit, state officials argued that the Shasta County ballot initiative, Measure B, which passed in June with 55 percent of the vote, violated state election laws and needed to be struck down before the November general election. The lawsuit was filed in California’s Third District Court of Appeal on Friday by Attorney General Rob Bonta and the state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

The five proponents of Measure B, who are named as “real parties in interest” in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the litigation “is just one more stark demonstration of the crushing hostility and contempt that our elected officials hold for citizens who use the initiative process to improve elections and safeguard their freedom.”

Measure B’s supporters included the county’s current clerk and registrar of voters, Clint Curtis, who was ousted by voters in the same June election in which the measure was passed. The newly elected registrar, a longtime elections official named Joanna Francescut, had been fired by Mr. Curtis.

A Shasta County spokeswoman said the county was unable to comment on ongoing litigation.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times