First-of-its form court docket order halts sweep of California homeless camp

The Bay Space metropolis of Vallejo is placing California cities’ newfound energy to clear homeless encampments to the take a look at.

A federal decide final month stopped the town from dismantling the makeshift shelter of 64-year-old Evelyn Alfred, which she erected practically two years in the past on an empty strip of land subsequent to a residential neighborhood. The ruling proves that, whilst extra cities in California crack down on encampments with sweeps and prison feesthere are pathways open for unhoused individuals to combat again.

“I think now what this shows is that there is hope,” mentioned Andrea Henson, an lawyer who represents Alfred and in addition leads the Berkeley-based nonprofit assist group The place Do We Go?

Earlier than the U.S. Supreme Courtroom dominated final summer time in a case out of Grants Go, Oregon, Alfred’s win won’t have been a giant deal. Again then, authorized precedent mentioned it was “cruel and unusual” to punish individuals for sleeping exterior if that they had nowhere else to go. In consequence, cities needed to be cautious to supply shelter earlier than clearing a camp. In the event that they didn’t, a decide would possibly very nicely step in and cease the sweep.

That every one modified in June, when the court docket precipitated a dramatic shift by discovering, in Grants Go v. Johnsonthat cities can ban individuals from establishing homeless encampments even when there are not any shelter beds out there.

The current order stopping Vallejo from clearing Alfred’s camp seems to be the primary such federal injunction because the Grants Go resolution, based on a number of authorized specialists interviewed by CalMatters.

“Cities and other governmental entities have been using the Grants Pass decision as if it was a green light (to clear encampments),” mentioned Anthony Prince, one of many attorneys representing Alfred. This ruling, he mentioned, proves that considering is improper.

Representatives from the town of Vallejo didn’t reply to CalMatters interview requests.

Many metropolis leaders and even California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, had cheered the Supreme Courtroom resolution, assuming it will give native governments freedom to take away camps that had taken over sidewalks, metropolis parks and different public areas. Advocates for the rights of unhoused individuals had been appalled, frightened cities would now indiscriminately criminalize individuals only for being homeless.

However this current Vallejo case exhibits it’s not so easy. In consequence, authorized specialists and different attorneys who signify homeless plaintiffs all through the state are listening to Alfred’s combat to remain put.

“I think we’re all watching closely to see what the courts will do,” mentioned Ron Hochbaum, a regulation professor and director of the Buccola Household Homeless Advocacy Clinic on the College of the Pacific.

Evelyn Alfred’s court docket battle

The dwelling Alfred is combating to maintain is made out of tarps, wooden and different supplies, and has a roof, home windows and a locking door, based on court docket paperwork. Her legal professionals argued it’s the one factor that protects Alfred — who walks with a cane and wears a again brace resulting from her osteoarthritis and different medical circumstances — from the weather.

The town of Vallejo first knowledgeable Alfred of its intent to take away her camp in October, and Alfred sued shortly after. In November, a federal decide briefly blocked the town from clearing Alfred’s camp by issuing a brief restraining order — an order that lasts till the court docket holds a listening to on the difficulty.

In February, the court docket granted a preliminary injunction, which is a a lot larger win: It lasts longer and comes solely after each side have made in depth arguments in court docket and the decide has had ample time to deliberate. This seems to be the primary one issued in federal court docket since Grants Go. It means Alfred can keep put till her case settles or goes to trial.

Alfred is on a number of waitlists for reasonably priced housing, however hasn’t but been supplied a placement, based on her legal professionals. When she requested the place she may go if she had been to go away her campsite, the town’s lawyer mentioned she couldn’t camp wherever else in Vallejo, based on court docket paperwork. The town doesn’t present shelter or transitional housing. Subsequently, Alfred’s legal professionals argued, she could be put in hurt’s means if she had been pressured to go away her camp, particularly resulting from her age, bodily and psychological disabilities and, as a girl, her vulnerability to sexual assault.

U.S. District Decide Dena Coggins sided with Alfred.

“Eradicating Plaintiff’s shelter whereas understanding Plaintiff has no options is more likely to expose

her to extra harmful circumstances than she at the moment faces by depriving her of safety from the weather, hygiene services, and entry to life necessities, making a recognized and particularized hazard to Plaintiff’s security and welfare,” she wrote.

If the town knowingly places Alfred in peril, that would violate her proper to “due process” beneath the 14th Modification, Coggins wrote.

The town, however, argued it needs to be allowed to take away Alfred’s camp as a result of the camp presents well being hazards brought on by human waste, her makeshift dwelling violates a number of constructing codes, and in erecting the dwelling, she broken a city-owned fence.

“Plaintiff has been properly noticed and provided with additional time to remove her encampment,” attorneys for the town wrote in a court docket submitting. “The City must now be allowed to enforce its law and remove Plaintiff’s encampment.”

However Coggins discovered no proof that Alfred’s camp presents any “weighty” well being and security issues.

Now the case will proceed on towards a trial or settlement. The town has filed a movement to dismiss, which Coggins is scheduled to listen to in Might.

What does this imply for future homeless plaintiffs?

Earlier than 2018, homeless plaintiffs usually used the 14th Modification (the idea for Alfred’s win) and the 4th Modification (which protects towards unreasonable searches and seizures by the federal government) to problem encampment sweeps in court docket.

Then, the federal Ninth Circuit appellate court docket dominated in Martin v. Wooded that punishing unhoused individuals for tenting in public if they’ve nowhere else to go violates the eighth Modification’s ban on merciless and weird punishment. After that, the eighth Modification grew to become the weapon of alternative for legal professionals representing unhoused individuals.

And it obtained outcomes. In 2022, legal professionals utilizing the eighth Modification to sue San Francisco received a serious victory: an order that stopped the town from implementing a number of anti-camping legal guidelines so long as there weren’t sufficient shelter beds out there.

Then, final summer time, the U.S. Supreme Courtroom dominated that Grants Go was not participating in merciless and weird punishment by banning encampments regardless of a scarcity of shelter beds. All of a sudden, the eighth Modification was off the desk. Now, homeless plaintiffs and the legal professionals who signify them are turning to different methods. The Vallejo case proves that these can nonetheless work, whilst cities all through California ban encampments.

Alfred’s attorneys additionally claimed the town of Vallejo violated the Individuals with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate Alfred’s disabilities because it tried to clear her camp. Coggins disagreed as a result of the town granted Alfred extra time to maneuver, and granted her request for assist packing her belongings.

“I think we’re all watching closely to see what the courts will do.”

Ron Hochbaum, regulation professor, College of the Pacific

However authorized specialists mentioned disabilities act claims are more likely to pop up in future instances. In a 2023 survey of homeless Californiansone in 5 mentioned they used a cane, walker, wheelchair or different mobility assist, based on the us Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative. Survey contributors additionally reported that shelters and backed housing weren’t accessible.

“That’s certainly an issue,” mentioned Laura Riley, a social justice lawyer and regulation professor at UC Berkeley. “We know that people who are unhoused disproportionately have disabilities. The plaintiff in this case has multiple disabilities, both mobility and mental health disabilities. So making sure that they honor the protections of the ADA for the unhoused population is important. And we know that that’s not happening, especially during sweeps.”

Alfred’s injunction might not stand alone for lengthy. The identical legal professionals who signify her additionally sued the town of Berkeley to cease the elimination of a camp at eighth and Harrison streets. One other lawsuit is trying to cease an encampment sweep within the Marin County city of Fairfax.

“Until localities and the state make the appropriate investments in shelter and housing,” Hochbaum mentioned, “this litigation is going to continue.”