Attorney General Bonta Files Pre-Enforcement Lawsuit Amid U.S. DOJ Demands that California Schools Violate State Law and U.S. Constitution

Lawsuit responds to threats by U.S. DOJ if California school districts do not certify to banning transgender students from playing on sports teams consistent with their gender identity 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a pre-enforcement lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ) in anticipation of imminent legal retaliation against California’s school systems. Last week, U.S. DOJ issued a letter requesting certification from California school districts that they will not comply with longstanding state anti-discrimination law that provides for the participation in sports for K-12 students consistent with gender identity. Today, the California Department of Education notified U.S. DOJ that the state will not certify to its demands, which would require school districts to violate not only existing state law, but also the U.S. Constitution. In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to uphold California’s anti-discrimination law and prevent the Trump Administration from taking retaliatory action, such as withholding or conditioning federal funding, over the state’s refusal to comply with U.S. DOJ’s unlawful demands. 

“The President and his Administration are demanding that California school districts break the law and violate the Constitution – or face legal retaliation. They’re demanding that our schools discriminate against the students in their care and deny their constitutionally protected rights,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As we’ve proven time and again in court, just because the President disagrees with a law, that doesn’t make it any less of one. As California’s chief legal officer, I’ll always fight to uphold and defend the laws of our state, especially those that protect and ensure the civil rights of the most vulnerable among us.”

Since 2012, it has been the law and policy of California that all persons, regardless of their gender, gender identity, or gender expression, should enjoy equal rights and opportunities, and freedom from discrimination of any kind, in their education. In 2013, the Legislature made clear that these protections specifically encompass school athletics. Similarly, the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), the statewide governing body for school sports, allows all students to participate in athletics in accordance with their gender identity pursuant to its Bylaw 300.D. 

With its recent certification letter, U.S. DOJ seeks to unlawfully upend, through executive decree, California’s longstanding policy of inclusion and anti-discrimination. On June 2, 2025, local educational agencies in California received a letter from U.S. DOJ wrongly asserting that Bylaw 300.D “requires California public high schools to allow male participation in girls’ interscholastic athletics,” and as such, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The letter demanded that these agencies “certify” that they would not implement Bylaw 300.D by June 9, 2025, “[t]o ensure compliance and to avoid legal liability.”

In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta argues that U.S. DOJ has no right to make such a demand. Prevailing Ninth Circuit precedent holds that categorically prohibiting transgender students from participating in athletic programs in accordance with their gender identity violates the Equal Protection Clause. Furthermore, allowing athletic participation consistent with students’ gender identity is squarely within the State’s authority to ensure all students are afforded the benefits of an inclusive school environment, including participation in school sports, and to prevent the serious harms that transgender students would suffer from a discriminatory, exclusionary policy. Acceding to U.S. DOJ’s demands would force California school districts to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and California’s antidiscrimination laws. While the certification demand letter purports that compliance with the Equal Protection Clause requires the categorical exclusion of transgender girls from girls’ sports, as courts have previously upheld, just the opposite is true: the Equal Protection Clause forbids such policies of total exclusion, as does California law.

A copy of the lawsuit is available here.