LIMITS ON S.F. ENCAMPMENT CLEARING UPHELD
Court declines to consider arguments for stricter rules
A court order limiting San Francisco’s ability to clear street encampments of people who have nowhere else to go will remain in effect while litigation continues, a federal appellate court ruled Thursday.
The ruling by a threejudge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marked a substantial win for the Coalition on Homelessness, a progressive advocacy organization that secured a preliminary injunction by challenging San Francisco’s policies for clearing encampments as fundamentally unjust and illegal under past court decisions protecting the rights of homeless people to sleep in public in certain situations.
Thursday’s ruling is the latest decision in a sprawling legal debate over homelessness in the American West and how local jurisdictions may legally address it. The debate has pitted progressive activists and advocacy groups against liberal leaders such as San Francisco Mayor London Breed and Gov. Gavin Newsom, who have been frustrated along with many of their constituents by the spread of encampments in downtown areas and other neighborhoods since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The debate has also sparked tensions between liberal and conservative judges of the 9th Circuit, including in a separate case out of Grants Pass, Ore., that is under consideration for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In its decision Thursday, the 9th Circuit panel declined to consider several arguments in favor of stricter enforcement measures that San Francisco and a coalition of other California cities had raised in recent filings, saying they hadn’t been properly raised or substantiated with facts in the lower district court. The judges did acknowledge, however, that the injunction only applies to “involuntarily homeless” people, or those who have not been offered alternative housing or shelter by the city, and ordered the lower court to clarify that point.
In recent months, San Francisco has tried to justify its continued operations to clear encampments, saying they are inhabited by people who have been offered shelter or housing.
The appellate judges also ordered the lower court to specify that the injunction prohibits the city from “threatening to enforce” its enjoined laws, but does not bar the mere presence of police officers near encampments.
John Do, a senior attorney for the ACLU of Northern California representing the coalition, said Thursday’s order should help ensure that San Francisco continues ramping up resources and offering shelter and housing to homeless people, rather than simply criminalizing poverty.
“It’s a resounding win,” he said.
Jen Kwart, a spokesperson for San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, said they appreciated that the appellate court “confirmed again and further clarified that the injunction only applies to people who are involuntarily homeless, not those who have refused an offer of shelter.”
However, Kwart said their office was “disappointed” by the court’s decision not to consider arguments posed by the city in the appellate process, including around the scope of its restrictions — which she said left critical legal questions about solving homelessness unanswered.
“Cities cannot reasonably be expected to solve homelessness while operating under this uncertainty,” Kwart said. “At some point, a court will need to clarify the law in this area, and it is disappointing that in the midst of an intense homelessness crisis, we all must continue to wait for that clarification.”
Breed’s office declined to comment on the pending litigation, but released figures Thursday claiming a 22 percent increase in the number of people connected to shelter or housing last year, and that 64 percent of people who city personnel interacted with at encampments “declined offers of shelter or reported already having shelter or housing.”
Newsom, in a statement, said the ruling would “only create further delays and confusion as we work to address homelessness.”