An adverse legal ruling by a federal court in Texas may mean legal trouble for California Attorney General Rob Bonta in more than one way. The Texas court’s decision not only allows Exxon to continue to prosecute a serious defamation lawsuit against Bonta, but a key finding by that court may also implicate him in multiple violations of California anti-corruption laws.
Bonta hoped to persuade Eastern District of Texas Judge Michael J. Truncale that Exxon Mobil cannot sue him for defamation because any offending statements he made against the company are part of his official duties and therefore protected.
Judge Truncale dismissed that explanation, concluding with Exxon that Bonta’s statements were made in a fundraising appeal – “not within Bonta’s scope of employment,” the judge ruled.
Truncale’s decision means that Exxon can proceed with the defamation claim it outlined in its January 2025 lawsuit. In that filing, Exxon cited Bonta’s claims that the Texas-based oil giant had engaged in a “decades-long campaign of deception to further its record-breaking profits at the expense of our planet.”
The judge’s decision that Bonta made the statements in his personal – rather than purely professional – capacity opens a legal challenge for Bonta back home: multiple California laws prohibit the use of public office for political campaigning.
You don’t have to take Judge Truncale’s word for it. Court documents show Bonta has deployed at least two California Department of Justice employees to defend him in the Exxon case. Reached by phone, one of them, attorney Robert Setrakian, confirmed he represented Bonta in the Texas hearing. Setrakian refused to say whether his work on Bonta’s defense might violate state corruption laws. The state DOJ press office has not responded to multiple requests for comment.
In the Texas courtroom, Setrakian acknowledged that Bonta had made the critical statements in a fundraising appeal that circulated widely and into Texas. But Setrakian claimed California and Texas law protect public officials from defamation claims even in fundraising so long as the offending comments can be reasonably connected to his official duties.
“A.G. Bonta was explaining the work his office was doing, giving the grounds in a suit he was filing on the people’s behalf,” Setrakian said. “It does not matter if he allegedly also harbored a politicking interest while making those statements.
Exxon’s attorney countered that Bonta’s claims were “beyond politicking,”
“This was him soliciting funds, which he’s not allowed to do. So, the immunity argument fails, Judge – him soliciting funds, which he’s not allowed to do. What he did as a candidate cannot have immunity. It cannot be protected.”
Then, in a reminder that may have chilled Bonta, the Exxon attorney made it clear that the full weight of the company’s litigation is on Bonta alone.
“We’re not suing California,” he told the court. “We’re suing Rob Bonta. And I don’t want California to write the check. I want Rob Bonta to. We are looking to him individually. We sued him individually.”
Despite Bonta’s apparent violations of state corruption laws, any attempt to hold him accountable will face multiple obstacles. Every statewide officeholder and most state judges, including those on the state supreme court, are Democrats.
The same goes for other potential venues. The California Fair Political Practices Commission’s administrators are appointed by five officials, all Democrats, including the attorney general himself.
The state bar has become similarly politicized, recommending the revocation of the California law license of John Eastman, the high-profile Trump attorney, for “false and misleading statements” in court filings and public advocacy. But the Bar dismissed a California Policy Center complaint that Bonta made similarly “false and misleading statements” in threatening California school boards for their practice of notifying parents of gender-transition plans designed for their children at school.
While many of the California laws banning the political use of public office are civil statutes, one is a criminal statute. Ordinarily, such a case might be undertaken by Bonta’s state Department of Justice. It’s possible that a county district attorney might try the case in a state court. But that struck many attorneys as unlikely.
“This is California,” said an attorney in private practice who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of political payback. “Good luck finding a state judge who will prosecute the state’s top law enforcement official.”
Will Swaim is CEO of the California Policy Center.