What Is the California Oregon DEI Grant Lawsuit?
The California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit is a federal case about conditions on public safety grants. Eleven California and Oregon cities and counties sued the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and the Interior.
The case is City of Fresno et al. v. Mullin et al., No. 3:26-cv-01535-WHO. It is pending in the Northern District of California before Judge William H. Orrick.
It is not a class action or a multidistrict litigation. The plaintiffs are governments, so no individual can join the case.
“Plaintiffs, eleven cities and counties in California and Oregon, regularly receive grants from the Department of Homeland Security (‘DHS’), the Department of Justice (‘DOJ’), and the Department of the Interior (‘DOI’) to advance public safety and emergency preparedness. Defendants seek to impose conditions on those grants to implement President Trump’s Executive Orders concerning immigration, diversity, equity and inclusion, and ‘anti-discrimination’ (the ‘Challenged Conditions’) that have nothing to do with or contradict the Congressional purpose in authorizing the programs for which the plaintiffs seek grants.”
Source: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, City of Fresno et al. v. Mullin et al., No. 26-cv-01535-WHO, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. 33 (July 9, 2026), p. 1 (footnotes omitted; defined terms in single quotation marks)
Why Was the California Oregon DEI Grant Lawsuit Filed?
The California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit was filed because agencies added new conditions to existing grant programs. The cities and counties say the conditions have nothing to do with the purposes Congress set for those programs.
The conditions implement executive orders on immigration, diversity, equity and inclusion, and anti-discrimination. DHS put them in its FY 2025 standard terms in April 2025. DOJ and Interior followed with their own terms later that year.
The DEI condition requires grantees to certify that they run no program promoting DEI in violation of federal anti-discrimination law. DHS may suspend or terminate funds if it finds a violation, and the money then becomes a debt.
The immigration conditions require grantees to share information with DHS and honor requests for cooperation. They also require access to detainees and bar publicizing immigration operations.
Enforcement pressure came from DOJ leadership. A May 19, 2025 letter from Todd Blanche invoked the False Claims Act. It said DOJ would pursue recipients who engage in civil rights fraud.
What Harms Does the California Oregon DEI Grant Lawsuit Allege?
The California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit alleges three distinct harms. They are a forced choice over grants, constitutional injury, and lost local public safety services.
The plaintiffs say all three harms flow from the same conditions. Judge Orrick found the harms likely enough to support an injunction.
Forced Choice Between Grants and Conditions
A forced choice here means a grantee must accept a funding condition it disputes or give up the grant.
Judge Orrick called this a Hobson’s choice. The plaintiffs could accept funding with potentially unconstitutional conditions or forgo funding altogether.
Redwood City declined to pursue UASI and JAG grants because of the DEI and immigration conditions. Fresno submitted its JAG application under protest.
Constitutional Injury
Constitutional injury is harm from government action that allegedly exceeds the limits the Constitution places on that action.
The plaintiffs say the conditions violate the separation of powers and the Spending Clause. They also say the conditions violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
Judge Orrick relied on his earlier rulings that constitutional injury and budgetary uncertainty count as irreparable harm.
Loss of Local Public Safety Services
Public safety grants are federal funds that local governments use for firefighting, policing, emergency response and similar services.
Santa Clara said losing its fire grants would limit its ability to staff its fire department. Beaverton said its court-based sobriety program would likely end without its DOJ grant.
Santa Cruz said uncertain funding could force it to consider employee layoffs and delay water infrastructure projects.
What Is the Current Status of the California Oregon DEI Grant Lawsuit?
The current status of the California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit is an injunction in place and on appeal. No settlement, trial date or final judgment exists as of October 25, 2026.
City of Fresno et al. v. Mullin et al.
Judge Orrick granted the injunction on July 9, 2026, in a 68-page order. It bars DHS, FEMA, DOJ and Interior from imposing the challenged conditions on the plaintiffs’ identified grants.
The order covers only grants the plaintiffs said they had applied for or intend to apply for. It excludes Interior grants for the City of Santa Cruz, which told the court it sought none.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California |
| Case Number | 3:26-cv-01535-WHO |
| Judge | William H. Orrick |
| Filed | February 20, 2026 |
| Plaintiffs at Injunction | Fresno, Santa Clara, Redwood City, Santa Cruz, Stockton, Beaverton, Corvallis, Hillsboro; San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara counties |
| Defendants | DHS, FEMA, DOJ and the Department of the Interior, with their officers |
| Latest Ruling | Preliminary injunction granted July 9, 2026 (Dkt. 33) |
| Appeal | Notice of appeal filed September 4, 2026; Ninth Circuit No. 26-5801 |
| Latest Docket Activity Reviewed | Case management conference, October 6, 2026 |
Judge Orrick denied two other requests. He declined to require a bond and declined to stay the conditions nationwide under 5 U.S.C. § 705.
He wrote that the plaintiffs may return for relief on additional grants. He also said he wants to move the case to summary judgment at the earliest appropriate time.
Did the California Oregon DEI Grant Lawsuit Settle?
No. The California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit has not settled, and the July 9 order awards no money damages.
The plaintiffs asked the court to block grant conditions, not to pay damages. The relief so far is an injunction protecting access to specific federal grants. No settlement talks appear in the public docket entries reviewed.
Fresno’s multi-year SAFER grant is $7,347,000 and Santa Clara’s SAFER grant is $11,269,422, according to declarations the court summarized.
California Oregon DEI Grant Lawsuit Updates and Case Status
Here is the current status of the California Oregon DEI Grant lawsuit, updated with new filings, rulings, and case-count reports as they're confirmed. Litigation in City of Fresno v. Mullin in the Northern District of California remains active as of October 2026, with no bellwether trial or settlement completed. The timeline below tracks every confirmed development from the first filing forward.
California Oregon DEI Grant Lawsuit Timeline of Events
Court Holds a Further Case Management Conference
Judge Orrick held a further case management conference in City of Fresno v. Mullin on October 6, 2026. The docket shows the conference set deadlines and hearings, but the dates were not available for review.
Parties File a Joint Case Management Statement
The parties in City of Fresno v. Mullin filed a joint case management statement on September 29, 2026.
Plaintiffs File a First Amended Complaint
The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in City of Fresno v. Mullin on September 15, 2026, with a redline comparison to the original. The amended allegations were not available for review when this page was updated.
Federal Defendants Appeal the Injunction
The federal defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit on September 4, 2026. The appeal challenges the July 9 preliminary injunction and is docketed as Ninth Circuit No. 26-5801.
City of Stockton Voluntarily Dismisses Its Action
The City of Stockton filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its action on August 27, 2026. Stockton had been one of the eleven plaintiffs covered by the July 9 injunction.
Judge Orrick Approves the Amended Complaint Schedule
Judge Orrick approved the plaintiffs’ stipulation in City of Fresno v. Mullin on August 10, 2026. The order set September 15, 2026 as the deadline for the first amended complaint. The order also moved the case management conference to October 6, 2026.
Plaintiffs Propose an Amended Complaint
On July 31, 2026, the plaintiffs in City of Fresno v. Mullin filed a stipulation proposing a first amended complaint. The stipulation also proposed staying the government’s answer deadline.
Judge Orrick Grants a Preliminary Injunction
Judge Orrick granted a preliminary injunction in City of Fresno v. Mullin on July 9, 2026, in a 68-page order. The order bars DHS, FEMA, DOJ and Interior from enforcing the challenged conditions against the plaintiffs.
Santa Cruz Files a Second Declaration
The City of Santa Cruz filed a second declaration in City of Fresno v. Mullin on June 22, 2026. It said Santa Cruz sought no additional Interior funding at that time.
Court Hears Argument and Orders a Santa Cruz Response
Judge Orrick heard argument on the preliminary injunction motion on June 17, 2026, and took it under submission. The same day, he ordered the City of Santa Cruz to file a response.
Plaintiffs File Their Reply
The plaintiffs in City of Fresno v. Mullin filed their reply in support of the preliminary injunction motion on May 27, 2026.
Federal Defendants File Their Opposition
DHS, FEMA, DOJ and Interior filed their opposition to the preliminary injunction motion in City of Fresno v. Mullin on May 18, 2026.
Plaintiffs Move for a Preliminary Injunction
The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and a Section 705 stay in City of Fresno v. Mullin on May 4, 2026. They asked the court to block the challenged conditions on DHS, DOJ and Interior grants.
California and Oregon Governments File Suit
California and Oregon cities and counties filed City of Fresno et al. v. Noem et al. on February 20, 2026. The Northern District of California docketed the case as No. 3:26-cv-01535 and assigned it to Judge William H. Orrick.
Interior Issues General Award Terms
Interior’s Office of Grants Management issued new General Award Terms and Conditions around July 30, 2025. The terms require grantees to certify they run no DEI programs that violate federal anti-discrimination laws.
DOJ Issues a Discrimination Guidance Memo
Then-Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a DOJ guidance memo for federal funding recipients on July 29, 2025. The memo listed unlawful practices that could lead to grant revocation, but it set no mandatory requirements.
Blanche Letter Invokes the False Claims Act
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche sent DOJ offices a letter on May 19, 2025. It said DOJ would use the False Claims Act against recipients who engage in civil rights fraud. The letter encouraged private suits against such recipients.
DOJ Publishes Office of Justice Programs Conditions
DOJ published FY 2025 General Conditions for Office of Justice Programs awards on May 12, 2025. The conditions require grantees to certify that they run no programs, including DEI components, that violate civil rights laws.
DHS Issues Version 3 of Its FY 2025 Standard Terms
DHS issued Version 3 of its FY 2025 Standard Terms and Conditions on April 18, 2025. The terms include a DEI condition, immigration enforcement conditions and an executive order compliance condition.
What Did DHS, DOJ and Interior Argue in the California Oregon DEI Grant Lawsuit?
The federal government argued that the court should not hear the case. Its opposition raised the Tucker Act, ripeness, joinder and venue. Judge Orrick wrote that none of those arguments undercut injunctive relief.
The government also conceded that the legal questions shared with County of Santa Clara v. Noem would likely control the result if the court kept its earlier reasoning.
On the merits, the government said grantees must only follow existing law. Judge Orrick wrote that the DEI conditions give grantees no meaningful guidance on how to comply.
The government also called the plaintiffs’ declarations boilerplate. The court mostly disagreed, with one exception for Santa Cruz.
| Issue | Government position | Court’s response |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | The Tucker Act sends the claims to another court | Rejected; the Tucker Act does not bar the case |
| Ambiguity of DEI conditions | Grantees only need notice that they must comply | Rejected; the conditions are likely impermissibly ambiguous |
| Irreparable harm | The declarations rest on boilerplate | Mostly rejected; Santa Cruz’s Interior claim excluded |
| Bond | An injunction bond is generally required | Denied |
How Does the California Oregon DEI Grant Lawsuit Compare to Similar Grant Condition Cases?
Several federal courts have heard challenges to similar grant conditions, and each case has its own plaintiffs and agencies. The California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit is separate from each of them.
Two cases carry the City of Fresno name. The 2025 case against Scott Turner concerns HUD, DOT and HHS grants. This case concerns DHS, DOJ and Interior grants.
| Case | Court and judge | Agencies | Outcome as of October 25, 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|
| City of Fresno v. Mullin (this page), No. 3:26-cv-01535 | N.D. Cal., Judge Orrick | DHS, FEMA, DOJ, Interior | Preliminary injunction July 9, 2026; appealed |
| County of Santa Clara v. Noem, No. 3:25-cv-08330 | N.D. Cal., Judge Orrick | DHS | Preliminary injunction in 2025, cited at 815 F. Supp. 3d 979 |
| City and County of San Francisco v. DOJ, No. 25-cv-09227 | N.D. Cal., Judge Donato | DOJ | Preliminary injunction January 21, 2026, as cited in the July 9 order |
| City of Fresno v. Turner, No. 25-cv-07070 | N.D. Cal., Judge Seeborg | HUD, DOT, HHS | Preliminary injunction September 23, 2025 |
The cases share legal theories but not dockets. Judge Orrick relied on his own Santa Clara reasoning. Orders in the other cases do not change the Fresno docket.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit about?
The California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit is about conditions that DHS, DOJ and Interior attached to local government grants. Eleven California and Oregon cities and counties say the anti-DEI and immigration conditions are unconstitutional.
Is the California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit a class action or an MDL?
The California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit is neither a class action nor an MDL. It is one federal case, City of Fresno et al. v. Mullin et al., No. 3:26-cv-01535-WHO, in the Northern District of California.
Can I join the California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit?
You cannot join the California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit as an individual, because the plaintiffs are local governments. The case has no certified class and no claims process.
Has a judge blocked the grant conditions in the California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit?
Yes. Judge William H. Orrick blocked the challenged grant conditions for the plaintiffs on July 9, 2026. He found the conditions likely violate the separation of powers, the Spending Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Does the injunction in the California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit apply nationwide?
The injunction in the California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit does not apply nationwide. It covers only the plaintiffs and the grants they identified, and Judge Orrick denied a broader stay.
Has the government appealed the California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit ruling?
Yes. The federal defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit on September 4, 2026. No Ninth Circuit ruling on that appeal had been reviewed as of October 25, 2026.
Has the California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit settled?
The California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit has not settled. The case seeks to block grant conditions, not to collect damages, and it has no final judgment.
Is the California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit the same as City of Fresno v. Turner?
The California Oregon DEI grant lawsuit is not the same as City of Fresno v. Turner. The 2025 Turner case involves HUD, DOT and HHS grants before Judge Seeborg. This case involves DHS, DOJ and Interior grants.