Newsom, Bonta fire first salvo in California v Trump, Round 2

On Thursday morning, Gov. Gavin Newsom called a special session of the California Legislature "to safeguard California values and fundamental rights in the face of an incoming Trump administration." Attorney General Rob Bonta later spent nearly an hour speaking to reporters about his office's early plans to fight a second Donald Trump administration in court.

California filed well over 100 court cases against the first Trump administration. But the next round of battles will feature a new cast of characters and a federal legal landscape transformed by recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions -- and not entirely to Trump's advantage.

There was a notable amount of agreement among the legal experts reached on Thursday: California v. Trump, Round 2, will be a story of emissions, immigration and chaos.

"I would expect one of the first squabbles that we will see is over emission standards for cars and trucks," said UC College of the Law, San Francisco professor Dave Owen. "That litigation involves interpretation of federal law right. It also involves interpreting the preemptive scope of provisions in a couple of different federal statutes."

"We may see something similar to what happened in 2017, which is that the Obama administration had granted waivers and then the Trump administration immediately moved to revoke them, which was at that time unprecedented," said UCLA School of Law professor Julia Stein.

California had fought for years to be allowed to set its own emissions standards for vehicles, which President Barack Obama finally allowed it to do. The state now has several other requests before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, including for motorcycles and freight truck fleets.

Paul S. Weiland, the assistant managing partner with the Environment & Land Use Group at Nossaman LLP in Irvine, said he expects the sides to battle over a variety of environmental policies in the next four years.

"In many areas of environmental law, the state can impose protections that are more stringent than or in addition to the federal government," Weiland said in an email. "So, for example, in the areas of water quality and endangered species, California already has its own laws and regulations. One area where there could be conflict is management of federal lands within California. In general, federal lands are not subject to state environmental laws."

Bonta gave few specifics at his morning news conference. Instead, he addressed "fear, anxiety, frustration and sadness" many in the state are feeling. He also acknowledged the breadth of the task now before him.

"We know to take Trump at his word when he says he'll roll back environmental protections, go after our immigrant ... communities, attack our civil rights and restrict access to essential reproductive care," Bonta said. "We won't be flat footed come January."

Trump said last month he would veto any federal abortion ban if Congress were to send him one.

Republicans and some business groups have criticized Newsom for calling the special session set to begin on Dec. 2. California Business Roundtable President Rob Lapsley issued a statement saying Newsom should call a session on rising gas, electricity, and home insurance prices.

Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher, R-Yuba City, called the session "a shameless political stunt" designed to bolster Newsom's "2028 presidential run."

"There will not be a single policy implemented in this special session that couldn't be addressed when the Legislature reconvenes in January," Gallagher said in an emailed statement.

But there is a key thing lawmakers can do next month, said Oakland-based tax attorney Selwyn D. Whitehead -- make sure the state has the resources needed to fight.

"There's going to be funding needed for our attorney general, as well as nonprofit public interest organizations," said Whitehead, who has written frequently on federal-state conflict.

In 2017, at the beginning of Trump's first term, California had a flush budget and was putting billions into a rainy-day fund. The current budget tapped some of those funds, and analysts have projected potential shortfalls for at least two more years. The state could also see growing costs for incarceration after crime-weary voters passed Proposition 36, increasing some drug and theft sentences.

Another U.S. Supreme Court decision could have a significant --though indirect -- impact on California. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 2024 DJDAR 5966 (S.Ct., filed Nov. 10, 2022) ended the Chevron deference once granted federal agencies.

Whitehead pointed to the Sunset Chevron Act, a bill introduced by House Republicans in June designed to systematically deactivate agency rules. She said if such a law passes, it could add to the workload of federal judges.

"That's just going to bog down the courts and we're not going to get anything done," Whitehead said. "That might be what some people want."

Owen said such a bill, if passed, would create chaos -- and potentially enable a big, rich state like California to sign regulatory agreements with corporations.

"It is basically saying to the business community, 'You are going to operate in a house of mirrors for a long, long time,'" Owen said. "I think someone in the business community would talk some sense into the sponsor of the bill."

Stein said the loss of Chevron deference might look different when Trump once again controls the administrative state -- and California and others begin challenging its agency rules.

"What the set of cases that that came down at the end of last term did was undermine authority of administrative agencies," Stein said. "That's as much true under a Trump administration as any other one. It just means those rules are as much going to be open to challenges any other as under the Biden administration."