We tracked California’s lawsuits against Donald Trump. Here’s where the state won — and lost – The Mercury News

california vs. Trump: A Looming Legal Clash

The political climate is in flux, and California is bracing for a potential rematch with a second Trump management. The Golden state, renowned for its progressive stances on a multitude of issues, frequently found itself at odds with the previous Trump administration, engaging in a multitude of legal battles.

Between 2017 and 2021,California initiated a staggering 123 lawsuits against the Trump administration,according to Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office.These legal challenges spanned a broad spectrum of crucial issues, encompassing environmental protection, immigration policy, and healthcare. The financial toll of these legal skirmishes amounted to roughly $10 million annually.

Given this history of conflict, legal and policy experts anticipate a resurgence of legal challenges should Trump return to the White House. California, steadfast in its commitment to safeguarding its interests and priorities, has already begun laying the groundwork for potential confrontations.

Attorney General Bonta has reportedly been drafting legal briefs in anticipation of future disputes, while Governor Gavin Newsom has called for a special legislative session aimed at “Trump-proofing” California. California Democrats have allocated a considerable sum of $50 million to fund legal battles against a potential Trump administration, a move that has drawn criticism from state Republicans, who have denounced it as a “slush fund” for hypothetical conflicts.

Historically, the Trump administration faced a high rate of defeat in the courts. A study conducted by the Institute of Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law revealed that Trump lost over two-thirds of the lawsuits filed against his policies during his first term. His overall win rate of 31% was notably lower then that of the preceding three administrations. However, legal experts caution that a second term might present a different scenario.

“That’s something we are certainly worried about this second time around, that they’ll make the same policy decisions that are bad from our viewpoint, but do it again in a smarter way that makes them harder to challenge,” expressed Eva Bitrán, director of immigrants’ rights and staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

California vs. Trump 2.0: A Legal Tug-of-War

The legal battles between California and the federal government, particularly during the Trump administration, have become a recurring theme. While some might view these clashes as mere political posturing, their outcomes have notable implications for businesses, environmental regulations, and the balance of power between states and the federal government.

During Trump’s first term, California’s Department of Justice secured several notable victories against the Trump administration’s approach to rulemaking.California challenged these rulings, arguing that the Trump administration rushed through regulations without adequate justification, evidence, or public input, violating the Administrative Procedure Act.Imagine a textbook case of homework left undone – that, in essence, was the argument California presented.

While courts largely sided with California, Trump’s pledge to eliminate thousands of career civil servants in a second term could perhaps shift the balance. Legal expert Stein believes, “I think businesses are going to feel like, ‘well, I still need to make investment decisions and I still need to contend with different state regulatory environments and federal regulatory environments and so I might want to start entering into private agreements,'”

This could signal a new era of private agreements and a shift away from solely relying on federal regulations.

Another significant battleground has been the interpretation of the Clean Water Act. california and other states have been locked in a prolonged legal struggle with the federal government over the definition of “waters of the United States.” This seemingly simple question has far-reaching consequences for water pollution regulations.

The Obama administration had broadened the definition to include wetlands and streams that only flow during rainstorms.Trump’s EPA repeatedly attempted to roll back this expansion, engaging in a legal back-and-forth that dragged on for years.ultimately,while California didn’t achieve a formal court victory,the clock ran out on Trump’s presidency,allowing Biden to take over in 2021.

The issue, however, didn’t end there. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that narrowed the definition of “waters of the United States,” aligning more closely with Trump’s position. But California remains steadfast in its commitment to stringent water quality standards, acting as its own regulatory bastion.

As California enters a new political chapter, tensions are brewing over environmental policy. Many anticipate a showdown between the state and a potential Trump administration, following a familiar pattern of past conflicts.California already offered a glimpse into this future when it preemptively abandoned a proposed ban on diesel trucks, anticipating a losing battle with the federal government.

Immigration: A California Stand Against the Tide

California has consistently found itself at odds with federal immigration policies, particularly those implemented during the Trump administration. From travel bans to sanctuary city funding,the state has fought fiercely to protect its residents and uphold its values.

Travel bans targeting individuals from Muslim-majority countries sparked immediate legal challenges from California. Attorneys argued that these policies were discriminatory and detrimental to the state’s economy, businesses, and academic institutions. While initial attempts were halted, a third version of the ban ultimately received Supreme Court approval in 2018. President Biden swiftly reversed the order upon taking office, demonstrating a clear shift in national priorities.

“Even in the cases where California lost,like this one,the fact that it took three rounds for the ban to be upheld,that’s helpful,” said Bitrán,an attorney with the ACLU Southern California. “Throwing sand in the gears and slowing them down has a protective effect on California’s immigrant communities, to.”

A Border Patrol agent leads a group of migrants seeking asylum towards a van to be transported and processed, near Dulzura on June 5, 2024. Photo by Gregory Bull, AP Photo

California’s embrace of sanctuary city policies, designed to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation, further ignited the conflict. While these policies offer substantial protection, they are not absolute, excluding individuals convicted of violent crimes or serious offenses.President Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, prompting legal action from California and San Francisco. former Attorney general Xavier Becerra emphasized that this funding, estimated at $28 million for California, supported essential programs such as recidivism prevention, youth outreach initiatives, and law enforcement efforts. A federal judge ultimately sided with California, declaring Trump’s order unconstitutional.

A defining legal battle during the Trump era centered on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. California, alongside the University of California Board of regents, played a crucial role in defending this program, which grants temporary protection from deportation and work authorization to immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. In a landmark June 2020 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the “dreamers,” blocking Trump’s attempt to end DACA.

A Shield for Healthcare: How California Safeguarded the ACA

When former President Donald Trump made it his mission to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA), frequently enough referred to as Obamacare, California took an unexpected stand as its fiercest defender.

Trump’s initial attempt to repeal the ACA outright failed when the Senate rejected a bill that woudl have erased the landmark legislation signed into law by former President Barack Obama. Yet, undeterred, Texas filed a challenge to the ACA’s constitutionality. Faced with a federal government unwilling to defend the law, California, alongside 17 other states, courageously stepped forward, advocating for its survival in court.

“California essentially stepped in for a Justice Department that was no longer doing its job on behalf of the nation and defended the law in court,” said Anthony Wright, executive director at families USA, a consumer health advocacy organization.

A booth for information on Covered California at the California‍ Native Americans Day celebration at the state Capitol⁢ on Sept. 22,2023. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

In a landmark June 2021 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with California, upholding the ACA and protecting healthcare access for millions. had the court ruled in favor of Texas, an estimated 20 million Americans, including 5 million Californians, would have lost their health coverage.

California’s commitment to safeguarding healthcare didn’t end there. When the Trump administration attempted to halt cost-sharing subsidies –

Navigating Healthcare in the biden Era: Challenges and Opportunities for California

The arrival of the Biden administration brought a shift in the national healthcare conversation, prompting Californians to closely examine the implications for their state’s unique healthcare landscape. As policymakers grapple with a complex web of federal and state mandates, the future of essential healthcare services hangs in the balance.

A major concern is the potential impact on Medicaid, a cornerstone of healthcare coverage for millions of californians. “Medicaid, better known as Medi-cal in California, serves close to a third of the state’s population,” explains Amanda McAllister-Wallner, interim executive director at Health Access California.”Reductions in funding for this program would be deeply consequential.”

California’s ability to protect its residents’ access to care is directly tied to federal funding. While California has made strides in recent years through legislation aimed at bolstering healthcare accessibility, significant challenges remain. “That’s a big takeaway and a big lesson learned from this last time around is that we can do a lot here in California to protect consumers, to uphold California values,” says McAllister. “But without the federal funding to guarantee access to healthcare for folks, it’s really hard to keep people enrolled and to keep people with coverage.”

The Biden administration’s stance on reproductive healthcare has also generated significant attention. Advocates are closely monitoring developments regarding abortion access and policies related to gender-affirming care, bracing for potential conflicts with California’s more progressive stance on these issues.

A Looming Clash: California Prepares for Potential Trump Return

The specter of Donald Trump’s potential return to the White House casts a long shadow over California, prompting experts to warn of a “sharp, extended conflict” with the Golden State.

The relationship between California and the federal government under a second Trump term is likely to be turbulent,with disagreements brewing over a range of key issues.

California’s unwavering commitment to progressive policies,particularly on climate change,immigration,and healthcare,sets the stage for potential clashes with a more conservative administration.

“Trump might potentially be planning a sharp, extended conflict with California,” experts warn, anticipating cuts to crucial programs and aggressive policy pushes that could pose significant risks to Californians across the political spectrum.

Immigration: A Battleground from the Start

from the outset of Trump’s first term, California and the federal government found themselves on opposing sides of the immigration debate. Trump’s controversial travel bans targeting Muslim-majority countries sparked legal challenges from California, leading to a series of mixed outcomes.California’s sanctuary state law, designed to protect undocumented immigrants, repeatedly faced legal challenges from the Trump administration, highlighting the deep ideological divide between the state and federal governments on this issue.

However, California also achieved some significant victories, successfully defending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program against Trump’s attempts to dismantle it.

Should Trump return to the White House, California anticipates a new wave of legal battles over immigration policies, including funding, asylum rules, and temporary Protected Status (TPS) programs.

Healthcare: A Fight for the ACA’s Future

the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as obamacare, faced fierce opposition from the Trump administration throughout his first term.

California, tho, stepped up to defend the ACA in court when the federal government failed to do so, successfully preserving the law and preventing an estimated 5 million Californians from losing their health coverage.

With Trump’s potential return,California remains vigilant,prepared to once again defend the ACA and its vital provisions for residents.

the coming months and years promise to be a defining period for California’s relationship with a potential second Trump presidency. The stakes are high,and the outcome of these battles will have a profound impact on the lives of millions of Californians.

How do pending changes in career civil servants possibly affect businesses’ interactions with federal regulations in California?

Summary of Key Points:

1. regulatory tensions: California has clashed with federal regulations under the Trump management, arguing rules were rushed without sufficient justification, evidence, or public input, violating the Administrative Procedure Act. While courts largely agreed, businesses might opt for private agreements due to pending changes in career civil servants.

1. Clean Water Act Dispute: California and other states fought the federal government over the definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, with Obama’s expansion narrower under Trump and Biden due to a Supreme Court ruling.California remains committed to stringent water quality standards.

1. Immigration Stance: California challenged federal immigration policies:

– Fought travel bans targeting individuals from Muslim-majority countries.

– Defended sanctuary city policies and funding.

– Joined legal battles for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program protection.

1. Healthcare Shield: California stepped in to defend the Affordable Care Act (ACA) when the federal government refused to, eventually winning a Supreme Court case that protected millions of Americans’ healthcare access.California continued advocating for healthcare subsidies and Medicaid during the Trump administration.

1. Medicaid Concerns Under Biden: Despite the shift to the Biden administration, California remains concerned about Medicaid funding, which covers nearly a third of its population. Access to care depends largely on federal funding, and while California has made strides in healthcare accessibility, critically important challenges persist.

1. State-Federal Tensions: As California enters a new political chapter with potential leadership changes, many anticipate further showdowns over environmental policy and a continuation of immigration policy disagreements, ofen reflecting a pattern of past conflicts between the state and federal government.