California has filed more lawsuits against the Trump administration than any state in American history: 123 during the first term from 2017 to 2021, and more than 60 since the second term began in January 2025. The state won roughly two-thirds of its first-term cases, defeated the citizenship question on the 2020 Census, preserved the Affordable Care Act, and protected the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. It lost its attempt to force presidential candidates to disclose tax returns. By August 2025 the Governor’s office said the second-term litigation had already protected or restored about $168 billion in federal funding against roughly $5 million in legal spending.1Governor of California. Fighting Federal Government Pays Off – California’s Legal Challenges Have Restored at Least $168 Billion in Federal Funding
The Scorecard So Far
The first term produced 123 lawsuits and a federal win rate of roughly 31 percent, meaning California and allied states prevailed in close to seven out of ten challenges. That rate was lower than the three previous administrations faced. The pattern behind it was consistent: agencies moved quickly, skipped required public comment, or gave stated reasons that courts found did not match the record.
The second-term docket is broader and the dollar figures are larger. More than 60 suits had been filed by mid-2025, covering federal spending, immigration, trade, civil rights, and public health. California’s Attorney General has reported that $11.1 billion in targeted funding cuts have been blocked so far, on top of the much larger freeze litigation described below.1Governor of California. Fighting Federal Government Pays Off – California’s Legal Challenges Have Restored at Least $168 Billion in Federal Funding
How California Keeps Winning: Standing and the APA
Two legal tools do most of the work. The first is standing. Article III of the Constitution requires that a plaintiff show a concrete injury, a connection to the defendant’s conduct, and a remedy a court can order.2Constitution Annotated. ArtIII.S2.C1.6.1 Overview of Standing California usually documents lost tax revenue, higher costs for state programs, or damage to natural resources. It also invokes parens patriae, the doctrine that lets a state sue on behalf of residents when their health, economic security, or general welfare is threatened, provided the state shows its own sovereign or quasi-sovereign interests are at stake.3Legal Information Institute. States and Parens Patriae
The second tool is the Administrative Procedure Act. Under 5 U.S.C. § 706 a court can set aside federal agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 5 USC 706 – Scope of Review California often wins without arguing the merits of a policy at all. If the agency skipped notice-and-comment, ignored its own scientific findings, or gave a pretextual reason, the APA alone is enough. That procedural angle explains the first term’s low federal win rate.
First-Term Wins
DACA Rescission Blocked
When the administration moved to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, California led the challenge. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious because the Department of Homeland Security failed to adequately explain its reasoning or consider alternatives such as ending work permits while keeping deferred removal in place.5Supreme Court of the United States. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California The Court did not hold that DACA can never be ended; only that the government had not followed proper procedures.
Sanctuary Law Upheld
The federal government sued California over the California Values Act (SB 54), which restricts state and local law enforcement from spending resources on federal immigration enforcement.6California Legislative Information. SB 54 Law Enforcement: Sharing Data California invoked the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine, under which Congress cannot force state officials to carry out federal programs.7Legal Information Institute. Anti-Commandeering Doctrine The Ninth Circuit largely sided with the state, finding that SB 54 did not conflict with federal information-sharing statutes because it still permitted sharing citizenship and immigration status, and that limits on sharing release dates and personal addresses fell within California’s authority.8Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. United States v. State of California
Census Citizenship Question Defeated
California argued that adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census would suppress responses from immigrant communities, costing the state congressional seats and federal dollars tied to population counts. The Supreme Court held that the Commerce Secretary’s stated reason, better enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, was pretextual, because the decision had been made before the Justice Department was even consulted.9Supreme Court of the United States. Department of Commerce v. New York The filing deadline passed before the government could try again, and the question stayed off the census.
Affordable Care Act Preserved
California led 17 attorneys general defending the ACA when Texas and other states sought to have the entire law declared unconstitutional after Congress zeroed out the individual mandate penalty.10State of California – Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General. Defending the Affordable Care Act In 2021 the Supreme Court dismissed the case on standing grounds, finding that the challengers could not show a concrete injury from a mandate with no penalty attached.11Supreme Court of the United States. California et al. v. Texas et al. Federal subsidies and the Medicaid expansion stayed in place.
Public Charge, Title X, and ACA Section 1557
Multiple courts blocked the expanded “public charge” rule, which would have let the government deny green cards to immigrants likely to use Medicaid or housing benefits; the Biden administration formally withdrew it in 2021. California also challenged the Title X “gag rule” that barred funded clinics from referring patients for abortion services, arguing it interfered with the doctor-patient relationship.12California Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General. Attorney General Becerra Files Lawsuit Challenging Trump-Pence Administration’s Title X Family Planning Rule A separate case targeted narrowed non-discrimination protections under Section 1557 of the ACA, which bars discrimination in federally funded health programs.13Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 18116 – Nondiscrimination
Emissions Waiver Restored
The federal government revoked California’s Clean Air Act waiver to set stricter vehicle emission standards. California sued, pointing to the Clean Air Act’s express carve-out for its program.14US EPA. Vehicle Emissions California Waivers and Authorizations The Biden administration restored the waiver in 2022.
First-Term Losses
SB 27 Tax Disclosure Struck Down
The state’s clearest defeat came on its own offensive move. SB 27 required presidential and gubernatorial candidates to disclose five years of federal tax returns to appear on the primary ballot.15Governor of California. Governor Gavin Newsom Signs SB 27: Tax Transparency Bill The California Supreme Court held that the law unconstitutionally added qualifications for the presidency beyond those in the federal Constitution.16Senator Shannon Grove. California Supreme Court Rules Democrats’ Law Pushing for Presidential Income Tax Disclosure is Unconstitutional It never took effect for any election.
Census Constitutional Argument Rejected
Even in the census win, California lost ground on one claim: the Supreme Court held that the Enumeration Clause does not categorically prohibit a citizenship question. The state prevailed only on the pretext finding.
Lost Congressional Seat
California lost one House seat after the 2020 Census, dropping from 53 to 52 representatives.17United States Census Bureau. 2020 Census Apportionment Results The Census Bureau attributed the result to population growth in other states rather than undercounting, so the loss was not a direct consequence of any litigation outcome.
Second-Term Fights
The $10 Billion Funding Freeze
The largest second-term case concerns a federal freeze on child care, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Social Services Block Grant funding in five states. About $5 billion of California money was placed in restricted status; roughly $10 billion was affected across all five states. California, New York, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota sued, arguing the freeze violated the Administrative Procedure Act, separation of powers, and Congress’s exclusive spending authority.18California Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Sues Trump Administration to Block Unlawful Freeze The administration conditioned release of the funds on states producing extensive documentation and personally identifiable data about benefit recipients within 14 days, which California characterized as an effort to use benefits data for immigration enforcement.
Birthright Citizenship
California joined 18 states challenging an executive order denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented parents. The order rests on the view that undocumented individuals are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The challenging states argue this reading contradicts more than 150 years of Fourteenth Amendment interpretation and the Immigration and Nationality Act, and they sought an immediate injunction.
Tariffs
California filed suit against the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs. The complaint argues the statute authorizes emergency powers over financial transactions but not tariffs, and invokes the Supreme Court’s major questions doctrine, under which executive actions of vast economic significance require clear congressional authorization.19Governor of California. Governor Newsom Files Lawsuit to End President Trump’s Tariffs The case tests new ground on presidential emergency authority in trade.
Emissions Waivers Withdrawn
In a tactical shift, California preemptively withdrew several pending waiver requests covering heavy-duty trucks, locomotives, harbor craft, and refrigeration units in January 2025, before new EPA leadership could deny them.14US EPA. Vehicle Emissions California Waivers and Authorizations Pulling the applications avoided creating adverse federal precedent and preserves the option to refile later.
What It Costs California
The Governor’s office reports $5 million in state spending to support the litigation effort, against at least $168 billion in protected federal funding, which it describes as more than $33,600 returned for every dollar invested.1Governor of California. Fighting Federal Government Pays Off – California’s Legal Challenges Have Restored at Least $168 Billion in Federal Funding The majority of that figure was preserved through a single early lawsuit blocking a broad freeze on federal grants, with $11.1 billion more protected from targeted cuts.
Whether second-term results match the first depends on two variables: how carefully federal agencies follow administrative procedures this time, and how courts treat the new generation of executive orders under existing statutory authority. The procedural tools that produced the first-term record, standing doctrine and the Administrative Procedure Act, remain the state’s main instruments.