In a case that bears similarities to the Warren vs. Chico lawsuit, a federal appeals court Thursday upheld a preliminary injunction that prohibits the city of San Francisco from conducting sweeps of homeless encampments without offering another form of shelter.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-to-1 to uphold the injunction in the case of Coalition on Homelessness v. San Francisco.
“We acknowledge that this litigation raises difficult and important legal questions with real stakes for San Francisco and the thousands of unhoused individuals who call San Francisco home,” Judge Lucy Koh wrote for the majority. “This only counsels in favor of resolving these questions with the benefit of two-level consideration and a developed factual record on key issues that would affect the constitutional analysis.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom was quick to criticize the decision.
“This latest action by the court will only create further delays and confusion as we work to address homelessness. It offers a troubling invitation to continued litigation that will hamper efforts to address encampments and provide people with the resources they need,” Newsom said.
“This ruling reinforces the need for the United States Supreme Court to provide clarity in this space by granting review in the Grants Pass case when it considers this matter later this month, as explained in the amicus brief filed by my office.”
The city of Chico has also filed an amicus brief in the Grants Pass case.
A federal judge in Sacramento issued a preliminary injunction against Chico in July 2021 barring the city from enforcing its anti-camping ordinances, saying they were unconstitutional. The ban stayed in effect until the city reached a settlement with plaintiffs in January 2022, a settlement that included the opening of the 177-unit Pallet shelter later that year.
In his dissent, Judge Patrick Bumatay disagreed with homeless advocates’ claim that San Francisco’s sweeps violated Eighth Amendment prohibitions on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
“There’s nothing in the text, history, and tradition of the Clause that comes close to prohibiting enforcement of commonplace anti-vagrancy laws, like laws against sleeping on sidewalks and in parks,” Bumatay wrote.