Connect with us

California

California officials get aggressive on homelessness after Supreme Court ruling

Published

on

California officials get aggressive on homelessness after Supreme Court ruling


Los Angeles, CA – June 10: After his homeless encampment under the 110 Freeway was removed by the city of Los Angeles for the Summit of the Americas, Calvin Hall, 63, who has been homeless for four years, returns from grocery shopping through a fenced-off area to a new area near the 110 Freeway and the Los Angeles Convention Center. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Allen J. Schaben | Los Angeles Times | Getty Images

Across California,  homeless encampments on city streets, in public parks and beneath highways have become among the most visible symbols of the state’s overwhelming challenges with affordable housing. Government officials are now using their newfound power to take on the problem.

Advertisement

In late June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3, with the conservative majority voting together, that cities are allowed to enforce fines and make arrests for public camping and sleeping outdoors, and to threaten jail time for those who repeatedly refuse to move indoors and accept assistance.

The decision overturned a 2022 ruling by an appeals court, which favored a group of homeless people in the small Oregon city of Grants Pass.

After the decision, California Governor Gavin Newsom applauded the clarity outlined in the ruling and put out an executive order in July pushing local governments to “develop their own policies to address encampments with compassion, care, and urgency.”

The order included guidance for cities and counties in a state that had more than 181,000 homeless people in 2023. Newsom said in a statement in June that the court’s decision “removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years and limited their ability to deliver on common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities.”

On Tuesday, Newsom signed two new laws. One will make it easier for service providers to place unhoused people into privately owned hotels and motels for more than 30 days, and the other speeds up the process for local governments to construct junior accessory dwelling units for shelter.

Advertisement

California accounted for nearly one-third of the country’s unhoused population last year, according to data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Over the past five years, the state has invested $27 billion to address the homelessness crisis, including $1 billion in encampment resolution funds.

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) reacts as he speaks to the members of the press on the day of the first presidential debate hosted by CNN in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., June 27, 2024. REUTERS/Marco Bello

Marco Bello | Reuters

San Francisco Mayor London Breed, who’s in the midst of a tight reelection campaign, has responded to the executive order with sweeps to clear encampments, and offered bus tickets out of town. Breed’s order cited data from this year’s Point-in-Time Count, which found that 40% of the homeless population in the city came from elsewhere in California or from out of state, up from 28% in 2019.

Breed’s challengers, including Levi Strauss heir Daniel Lurie and former interim Mayor Mark Farrell, have told CNBC about the need to increase safety on the streets and move away from public camping. Lurie said he would plan to build 1,500 shelter beds in his first six months of office. Farrell has called for an increase in police enforcement in areas struggling with both drugs and homelessness, and increased incentives for small businesses and affordable housing.

Advertisement

‘Real kick in the gut’

The changing approach has its share of critics.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the Supreme Court ruling “must not be used as an excuse for cities across the country to attempt to arrest their way out of this problem or hide the homelessness crisis in neighboring cities or in jail.”

Bass has publicly called for more housing and shelter beds for homeless individuals, coupled with supportive services, and said that criminalizing the actions or trying to push them away “is more expensive for taxpayers than actually solving the problem.”

Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the San Francisco-based Coalition on Homelessness, called the ruling “a real kick in the gut.”

Her group’s goal is to seek permanent solutions for homelessness via advocacy and ballot measures. Prior to the Supreme Court decision, unhoused public campers couldn’t be fined without the offer of shelter.

Advertisement

“This [was] a protection that at the very least there would be some attempt that the local municipalities had to do to try to offer them someplace to sleep,” Friedenbach said. “They literally have nowhere to go so when these operations happen, the [sweeps] typically exasperate homelessness and make it worse.”

Breed and Bass have both advocated for more access to affordable housing and shelter. In 2022, the California Department of Housing and Community Development found that by 2030, at least 2.5 million new homes need to be built, with at least 1 million of those going to lower-income families. 

Inaction has broad economic repercussions. The National Alliance to End Homelessness found in 2017 that a chronically homeless person costs the taxpayer an average of $35,578 per year, costs that are reduced by nearly half when the person is placed in supportive housing.

One solution is more interim housing, said Adrian Covert, senior vice president of public policy at the nonprofit Bay Area Council.

“We know that we cannot build permanent housing in California faster than the rate at which our broken housing market is creating homeless people through our housing shortage,” Covert told CNBC. “You have to have someplace for them to go so they don’t endure that trauma on the street. And that’s where interim housing comes into play.”

Advertisement

WATCH: California responds to Supreme Court ruling on encampments

California responds to Supreme Court ruling on encampments



Source link

California

California bill to bar police from taking second job with ICE advances in state Assembly

Published

on

California bill to bar police from taking second job with ICE advances in state Assembly


Wednesday, March 4, 2026 4:43AM

CA bill to keep police from moonlighting with ICE advances

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KABC) — A bill that would prevent police officers from moonlighting with federal immigration enforcement agencies, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is advancing through the California State Assembly.

AB 1537 passed the State Assembly’s committee on public safety on Tuesday.

The bill also requires that officers report any offers for secondary employment related to immigration enforcement to their place of work.

Those failing to comply could face decertification as a peace officer in California.

Advertisement

The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, whose district includes Mar Vista, Ladera Heights, Mid-Wilshire and parts of South Los Angeles.

Copyright © 2026 KABC Television, LLC. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Can’t win in primary election? Drop out, California Democrats say

Published

on

Can’t win in primary election? Drop out, California Democrats say


play

California Democrats running for governor, your party has a message for you. Think carefully about your candidacy and campaign ahead of the swiftly approaching filing deadline.

California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks urged candidates looking to assume the state’s highest office to “honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign” as March 6, the final day to declare candidacy, nears. Hicks said that concerns about the crowded field of Democrat candidates “persist” in an open letter on Tuesday, March 3.

Advertisement

It comes as five leading candidates, several of which are Democrats — Katie Porter, Eric Swalwell, and Tom Steyer — are in a “virtual tie” per a recent poll, the Desert Sun reported, which is part of the USA TODAY Network.

Two Republican candidates pushing out California democrats in the gubernatorial bid may be “implausible,” but “it is not impossible,” Hicks said of the reasoning behind his latest message. Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans, lead in RealClear Polling’s average of various polls.

The party chair spotlighted the need for California Democrats’ leadership, particularly over Proposition 50, the voter-approved measure that will temporarily implement new congressional district maps, paving the way for Democrats to secure more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“If in the unlikely event a Democrat failed to proceed to the general election for governor, there could be the potential for depressed Democratic turnout in California in November,” Hicks said. “The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House, cut Donald Trump’s term in half, and spare our nation from the pain many have endured since January 2025.”

Advertisement

During a press conference on March 2, Gov. Gavin Newsom said that when he is out in communities, people aren’t talking about the governor’s race. It’s an observation he called “interesting,” considering voting in the primary election starts in May.

“It’s been hard, I think, to focus on that race,” Newsom said, pointing to the attention on President Donald Trump, redistricting, and other matters.

What exactly is California Democratic Party asking of candidates?

In his open letter, Hicks gave directions to candidates.

First, assess your candidacy and campaign. If you don’t have a viable path to the general election, don’t file to get your name on the ballot for the primary election in June. Also, be prepared to suspend your campaign and endorse another candidate by April 15 if you decide to file but can’t show “meaningful progress towards winning the primary election.”

Advertisement

When is the next California election? Primary election in 2026

California voters will trim the field of candidates for governor on June 2. Only the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party preference, will move on to the November election.  

Paris Barraza is a reporter covering Los Angeles and Southern California for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at pbarraza@usatodayco.com.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Supreme Court blocks California law limiting schools from telling parents about trans students

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks California law limiting schools from telling parents about trans students


The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a California law that limited when schools could require staff to disclose a student’s gender identity, clearing the way for schools to tell parents if their children identify as transgender without getting the students’ approval.

Rear view of multiracial students with hands raised in classroom at high school

The decision came after religious parents and educators, represented by the Thomas More Society, challenged California school policies aimed at preventing staff from disclosing a student’s gender identity.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and professor of law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, said the ruling favors parents’ ability to be informed. “The Supreme Court today rules in favor of the claim of parents to be able to know the gender identity and gender pronoun of the children,” Chemerinsky said.

Advertisement
FILE:{ }transgender flag against blue sky background { }(Photo: AdobeStock)

FILE:{ }transgender flag against blue sky background { }(Photo: AdobeStock)

The decision temporarily blocks a state law that bans automatic parental notification requirements if students change their pronouns or gender expression at school. The Thomas More Society called the decision a major victory for parents, saying the court found California’s policy likely violates constitutional rights.

Chemerinsky said the Supreme Court’s action is an emergency ruling. “This law is now put on hold. So what this means is that schools can require that teachers and other staff inform parents of the gender identity or gender pronouns of children,” he said.

scotus.PNG

Kathie Moehlig, founder and executive director of Trans Family Support Services, said she is concerned about how the ruling could affect students who do not have supportive families.

“I am really concerned about our kids that do come from these non affirming homes, that they know that they’re going to get in trouble, that they’re going to possibly have violence brought against them possibly kicked out of their homes,” Moehlig said.

Moehlig said parents should eventually know, but that the conversation should happen when a student feels safe. “Our students are going to be less inclined to confide in any adults that might be able to help to get them access to mental healthcare, to a support system. They may still tell their peers but they’re certainly not going to tell any other adult,” she said.

Advertisement

Equality California, a LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, shared a statement:

Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, released the following statement from Executive Director Tony Hoang in response to today’s U.S. Supreme Court shadow docket ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta regarding California’s student privacy protections for transgender youth. Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in this case is deeply disturbing. By stepping in on an emergency basis, the Court has effectively upended California’s student privacy protections without hearing full arguments and before the judicial process has run its course. While not surprising, this move reflects a dangerous willingness to short-circuit the established judicial process to dismantle protections for transgender youth. While this case continues to be litigated, the ruling revives Judge Benitez’s prior decision, which broadly targets numerous California laws protecting transgender and gender-nonconforming students — threatening critical safeguards that prevent forced outing and allow educators to respect a student’s affirmed name and pronouns at school. These protections exist for one reason: to keep students safe and ensure schools remain places where young people can learn and thrive without fear. To be clear: today’s decision does not impact California’s SAFETY Act, which prohibits school districts from adopting policies that forcibly out transgender students. The SAFETY Act remains in full effect, and we will continue defending it. Transgender youth deserve dignity, safety, and the freedom to learn without fear. We will never stop fighting for transgender youth and their families. Equality California will continue working with parents, educators, and advocates to ensure schools remain safe, welcoming, and focused on the success and well-being of every student.

The case now returns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which will decide whether the California law is constitutional.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending