Democratic governor. Gavin Newsom and GOP Rep. Darrell Issa are on the same side in a political fight.
All it took to bring them together was a homeless crisis.
On Monday, the Supreme Court takes up 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 on sidewalks have become painfully omnipresent symbols of an issue that has consumed California politics for years. A lack of progress fueled public frustration.
Californians of all parties and levels of government – from the Newsom administration to Democratic mayors to House Republicans likeIssa — implored the Supreme Court to consider overturning the decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson which prohibits the dismantling of camps without moving the people inside.
Specifically, they want the high court’s conservative majority to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision — an odd situation since the Ninth Circuit is typically attacked by Republicans for its liberal decisions. The 2020 Grants decision struck down an Oregon city’s anti-camping ordinances and blocked local officials from citing homeless people for public camping.
In an amicus brief filed with the court, Newsom’s administration warned that cities “are trapped” in a no-win situation because they risk being sued if they eliminate encampments, while at the same time, they can be prosecuted if they do so. failing to immediately address the public health and safety risks posed by street camping.
Newsom said that while he opposed penalties for people sleeping outside, the Grants Pass decision had been interpreted so broadly that it largely prevented cities from doing anything. Issa submitted his own amicus brief alongside other House Republicans like Kevin Kiley and Tom McClintock of California. They criticize the Ninth Circuit for reasons similar to Newsom’s, saying the court “effectively usurped political power from local municipalities.”
Perhaps no case study has angered Newsom as much as that of San Francisco, which faces a months-long restriction on cleaning encampments. A judicial magistrate issued a partial injunction in late 2022 that prevented the city from clearing the tents unless it provided immediate shelter.
“I hope this goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and that’s a heck of a statement for a progressive Democrat,” Newsom told POLITICO last fall.
Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed sharply criticized Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu over the injunction. The mayor hammered Ryu for trying to “micromanage” the response to a crisis in a city where she doesn’t live. Ryu, in turn, said the city lacked “thousands of beds” to provide adequate shelter.
The San Francisco case is effectively on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision. But it shows the uncomfortable politics for Democrats like Newsom and Breed — who find themselves praying that conservative Supreme Court justices will hand them victory.
Do you like this content ? Consider subscribing to POLITICO’s California Playbook newsletter.
