California, Trump Administration Ready for 2026 Court Battles

California’s response to the Trump administration has prompted a flood of litigation, with several major hearings over the line between state law and federal authority teed up for hearings early in 2026.

Some pending cases, such as a challenge to immigration enforcement tactics in the Los Angeles region, have led to emergency docket orders from the US Supreme Court, the authority of which will be a major point of litigation in the coming months. At stake are hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds and the state’s ability to steer policy in key areas including education, health, and infrastructure.

By August, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that early federal court orders had restored $168 billion in federal funding to California, a payoff after a February state funding package pumped $25 million into Bonta’s office for legal fights with Trump.

Now, the cases are maturing in California courts and some Golden State victories could be threatened when they reach the conservative high court. Still, while the Supreme Court has frequently sided with the Trump administration, it’s difficult to evaluate the justices’ response to legal fights involving California in one sweep, UCLA Law Professor Joseph Fishkin said. The degree of its alignment varies by topic, with the court indicating significant support for the dismantling of independent agencies, but drawing a line against the administration’s unauthorized National Guard deployments, Fishkin said.

“There’s a lot of battles that are highly politically salient, and also there’s litigation about the topic,” Fishkin said. “In general over the past year you’ve seen—not just in California but around the country—you’ve seen a lot of district courts and even appellate courts issue rulings that are pretty much normal law, what you would expect, and then you’ve seen the Supreme Court take some positions that are more unusually favorable to the Trump administration. That’s the broad pattern.”

Trump v. California

Several cases brought by the Trump administration in response to laws passed by California are set for hearings in the first part of this year.

US District Judge Christina Snyder on Jan. 12 will hear a motion for a preliminary injunction in the legal challenge over the No Secret Police Act (SB 627) and No Vigilantes Act (SB 805), passed in response to reports of masked, unidentifiable federal law enforcement agents.

Federal agents would be prohibited from wearing masks and required to identify themselves by displaying their agency and name or badge number under the laws. The Trump administration, alleging violations of the Supremacy Clause, said in a November complaint the laws “would recklessly endanger the lives of federal agents and their family members and compromise the operational effectiveness of federal law enforcement activities.”

The laws were set to take effect Jan. 1, but California agreed not to enforce them until Snyder rules on the preliminary injunction request. Docket

A July lawsuit alleged California’s laws banning tight cage confinement for egg-laying hens are driving up consumer prices nationwide. It argues the federal Egg Products Inspection Act preempts state laws governing the treatment of hens and egg quality.

California said in court filings the first Trump administration previously agreed that the federal law doesn’t supersede the state’s cage-free law.

US District Judge Mark Scarsi in Los Angeles will hear California’s motion to dismiss Jan. 12, and a summary judgment hearing is scheduled for Feb. 23. Docket

Challenges to Administration Actions

Additionally, lawsuits brought by California-based litigants have action coming in early 2026.

The judge who issued one of the first major orders restricting the Trump administration’s 2025 federal immigration raids will hear on Feb. 5 contrasting motions to dismiss the case and to enforce her preliminary injunction.

US District Judge Jennifer Thurston in April ordered US Customs and Border Protection agents to stop arresting people in California’s Central Valley without reasonable suspicion. Detainees had accused agents of widespread racial profiling in a case with facts echoing Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, which is pending in LA federal court. US Supreme Court justices in an interim stay order lifted the LA district court’s injunction and allowed enforcement efforts to resume uninhibited.

The Trump administration argues the plaintiffs lack standing, based on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence attached to the September order. The plaintiffs say the emergency docket order isn’t binding. They also allege federal agents have violated the preliminary injunction and are asking for an order to require further training and documentation. Docket

In San Francisco, a Ninth Circuit panel will hear arguments in a challenge to the use of Trump administration executive orders on gender identity and diversity initiatives to block funds for a set of nonprofits supporting LGBTQ+ clients.

The nonprofits brought the case in San Francisco federal court after the federal government yanked their awards, saying it wouldn’t fund programs that were “equity related” or promoted “gender ideology.” US District Judge Jon Tigar in June granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the administration to reinstate terminated awards.

Arguments are scheduled before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Feb. 10. Docket

Awaiting Rulings

California’s new congressional map drawn in response to Texas redistricting to add up to five Democratic state representatives will get a ruling from a federal panel shortly on whether it can be used for the 2026 midterms. Lawyers argued in December over whether the maps were politically motivated or an unlawful racial gerrymander. Docket

A judge is also set to rule soon on whether the Trump administration can compel California to produce voter rolls that include personal information such as registered voters’ drivers licenses and social security numbers, after the state asserted privacy laws shield the data. Docket.