Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom and representative of the Republican Party. Darrel Issa are on the same side of a political fight.
All it took to bring them together was a homelessness crisis.
On Monday, the Supreme Court is hearing a case with monumental consequences for how cities in California and other states treat encampments. The question is whether local governments can remove encampments if there are no more permanent shelters available for the homeless.
Tents pitched in parks, under highways and sidewalks have become painfully ubiquitous symbols of an issue that has consumed California politics for years. Lack of progress fueled public frustration.
Californians across all parties and levels of government — from the Newsom administration to Democratic mayors House Republicans likeIsa – implored the Supreme Court to consider reversing the decision in Grants Pass v. which prohibits dismantling camps without taking people indoors.
Specifically, they want the high court’s conservative majority to overturn the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — an odd situation since the Ninth Circuit is generally attacked by Republicans for its liberal rulings. The 2020 Grants ruling invalidated an Oregon city’s anti-camping laws and prevented local officials from citing homeless people for public camping.
In an amicus brief filed with the court, the Newsom administration warned that cities “are stuck” in a no-win situation because they risk being sued if they clean up encampments, while at the same time they could be sued if they do. t immediately address the public health and safety risks posed by street camping.
Newsom said that while he opposes penalties for people sleeping outdoors, the Grants Pass ruling has been interpreted so broadly that it largely prevents cities from doing anything. Issa filed his own amicus brief alongside other House Republicans such as Kevin Kiley and Tom McClintock of California. They criticize the Ninth Circuit for similar reasons as Newsom, saying the court has “effectively usurped the political authority of local municipalities.”
Perhaps no case study has angered Newsom as much as that of San Francisco, which faced a months-long restriction on clearing camps. A judicial magistrate issued a partial injunction in late 2022 that prevented the city from emptying the tents unless it offered immediate shelter.
“I hope this goes to the Supreme Court, and that’s quite a statement for a progressive Democrat,” Newsom told POLITICO last fall.
Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed sharply criticized Judge Donna Ryu over the injunction. The mayor criticized Ryu for trying to “micromanage” the response to a crisis in a city where she doesn’t live. Ryu, for his part, said the city does not have “thousands of beds” to provide adequate shelter.
The San Francisco case is effectively on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision. But it shows uncomfortable politics for Democrats like Newsom and Breed — who find themselves praying that conservative Supreme Court justices will hand them a victory.
Did you like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO’s California Playbook newsletter.
