California's 100th Trump Suit Tests Taxpayer Patience

On Thursday, California sued the Trump administration for the 100th time in under two years, challenging federal immigration arrests at or near state courthouses. State Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta called the count a “sobering milestone.” But even one of California’s own legal heavyweights isn’t sure the bill is worth paying.

Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, said many of the state’s suits were “legally meritorious,” pointing to “a whole lot of legal error” from the administration. Then he offered a caveat that should give Sacramento pause. As a California taxpayer, McConnell said, he didn’t “appreciate having government using my tax dollars for what essentially are in many cases ideological lawsuits, even if meritorious,” since private litigants can and often do bring lawsuits. He said he felt the same about many suits Republican states brought against the Biden administration.

The Latest Lawsuit

Bonta’s complaint challenges ICE arrests of people for alleged civil immigration violations at or near state courthouses. His office argues the arrests are arbitrary and capricious because they chill participation in the state’s justice system, violate the Immigration and Nationality Act as Congress intended it, and interfere with California’s 10th Amendment right to carry out its “core sovereign judicial and police functions.”

Bonta said the harm is practical. “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,” he said. Alejandro Barraza, a criminal defense and immigration attorney, described three clients caught up in the enforcement. One was arrested while driving home from a hearing at the Riverside County Hall of Justice in October 2025. Another was arrested as he left the Rancho Cucamonga courthouse in December. A third pleaded guilty rather than go to trial, against Barraza’s advice, because he feared ICE arrest.

ICE didn’t respond to a request for comment. The agency has defended courthouse arrests as a “common sense” way to apprehend offenders where and when authorities know they’ll be. A May 2025 ICE memo said agents could act in or near courthouses when they have “credible information” that a targeted person is or will be at a specific location.

The White House Response

The administration didn’t mince words. White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said Bonta should stop bragging about “filing frivolous lawsuits” and “focus on addressing problems in his own state.” She added: “The reality is, with well over 25 Supreme Court victories, the administration’s policies have been consistently upheld as lawful, despite some lower courts issuing an unprecedented number of lawless injunctions.”

That’s the other side of the ledger. Bonta said in August that his suits had saved California more than $200 billion, largely by reversing cuts to federal funding. Spokesperson Abigail Jackson replied then that he should stop “filing frivolous lawsuits.”

The courthouse fight is already moving on other tracks. In June, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts in San Francisco struck down ICE’s expanded courthouse arrest policies nationwide, restoring earlier restrictions. The administration is appealing. California court officials have since reported 30 arrests by federal agents in June, 29 in July, 19 in August and 14 in September. Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law extending protections to public ways within 1,000 feet of court facilities, with an exception for valid judicial warrants.

A Pattern, Not an Anomaly

Independent experts said the litigation isn’t one-sided. During Trump’s first term, California, under then-Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, a current gubernatorial candidate, sued more than 120 times over four years. Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, now a Republican candidate for Senate, sued the Biden administration just over 100 times in four years. Presidents of both parties have increasingly used executive power, while state attorneys general have increasingly sued in response.

Daniel Farber, a professor at UC Berkeley Law School, said the administration was “doing more aggressive things right off the starting block” and repeatedly targeting California. McConnell pointed to overreach “facilitated by the lack of internal checks” from loyal agency heads.

Bonta’s docket reaches far beyond courthouses. His office has also challenged plans to end birthright citizenship, worldwide tariffs, National Guard deployments in Los Angeles and other cities, and the withholding of billions in federal funding that Congress allocated to California. He framed the effort as a response to “shock and awe,” adding, “We kept pace every time.”

Why This Matters:

A hundred lawsuits means a hundred rounds of spending by a state government, with California taxpayers footing the bill. Even a sympathetic constitutional scholar says private litigants can and often do carry cases like these, raising a fair question about the role a state’s legal budget should play. The fight over who may be arrested near a courthouse also touches the balance between state authority and federal immigration law, a question the appeals court will have to settle. Meanwhile, the White House cites more than 25 Supreme Court victories, while California cites $200 billion in preserved funding. Voters and courts will decide which tally carries more weight. The sheer volume suggests litigation is becoming a default tool of governance, not a last resort.