Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Doj Federal Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DOJ seeks ongoing funding and staff to defend state against federal actions; committee hears scope of cases
Summary
The Department of Justice asked for $14.4 million ongoing and 44 positions to defend California against adverse federal actions; DOJ described the types of cases this funding would support, while LAO recommended limited-term funding and robust reporting requirements
The Department of Justice requested $14.4 million in ongoing general fund and 44 positions to support litigation and related workloads tied to “federal accountability” matters, work department officials said is necessary to defend state programs and funding.
Mark Jimenez of the Department of Finance summarized the DOJ May revision request: $14.4 million ongoing (13 of which is general fund) and 44 positions to respond to legal challenges and defend state programs affected by federal action. The May revision builds on $5 million one-time funding DOJ received earlier in the fiscal year. DOJ officials said the additional staff would primarily be attorneys conducting litigation and supporting experts and a federal-accountability lead to manage multi‑venue cases.
Anita Lee of the LAO advised that some of the special-session funding the Legislature enacted remains available (about $19.5 million of a prior $25 million set-aside) and that the LAO recommends the Legislature consider shorter-term funding rather than guaranteed indefinite positions. LAO also recommended consistent reporting requirements aligned with the special session’s reporting language.
Department of Justice subject-matter staff described the caseload the requested funding supports. DOJ public-rights staff said in the first five months they had initiated roughly 25 cases and around 25 amicus briefs addressing federal actions that could affect billions in federal funds to the state. DOJ cited examples where federal actions would have cut or frozen funding streams for public health, education recovery grants, electric-vehicle infrastructure and other programs affecting hundreds of millions to billions of dollars nationally and hundreds of millions for California.
Committee members asked whether ongoing funding was necessary given the possibility that federal litigation needs could change with a future administration. DOJ counsel said long-term hiring provides litigation continuity and that attorney salaries and recruitment are sensitive to funding certainty. The LAO said limited‑term funding with required reporting would give the Legislature more oversight.
The committee asked DOJ to clarify expected hiring costs and to provide more detailed periodic reporting on cases and spending if the Legislature provides funding; LAO and committee members emphasized that limited-term funding is a common legislative tool to balance workload uncertainty and oversight needs.
