The city of Vallejo in the Bay Area is becoming a testing ground for California’s renewed authority to clear homeless encampments. In a recent development, a federal judge prevented Vallejo from dismantling the makeshift home of Evelyn Alfred, a 64-year-old resident who set up her shelter on a strip of land adjacent to a residential neighborhood two years ago. This ruling demonstrates that despite the state’s increasing enforcement efforts, there remain avenues available for the unhoused to legally resist such moves.
Attorney Andrea Henson, representing Alfred, sees this as a hopeful sign for those in similar situations. Prior to a notable U.S. Supreme Court decision from last year, the legal standard deemed it “cruel and unusual” to penalize individuals for sleeping outdoors if no alternative shelter was available. This required cities to ensure shelter provision before dismantling camps, lest they face judicial intervention. However, the Supreme Court’s verdict in Grants Pass v. Johnson shifted this dynamic, permitting the prohibition of encampments even if shelters are unavailable.
Vallejo’s stalled attempt to clear Alfred’s camp marks what legal experts believe is the first federal injunction against such action since this ruling. Anthony Prince, one of Alfred’s attorneys, stated this represents a challenge to the assumption that the Grants Pass decision provided carte blanche for encampment clearances. Despite requests for comment, Vallejo officials have remained silent.
Many local authorities and even California Governor Gavin Newsom viewed the Supreme Court’s decision as a helpful tool for removing encampments from public spaces; however, homeless advocacy groups worry about the potential criminalization of unhoused individuals. This case, therefore, is particularly significant and closely monitored by attorneys and legal scholars, including Ron Hochbaum from the University of the Pacific.
Alfred’s legal battle involves a structure crafted from simple materials such as tarps and wood, providing essential shelter given her health challenges, which include osteoarthritis. After receiving notice from Vallejo in October regarding their intent to clear her encampment, Alfred took legal action to prevent it. The initial temporary restraining order was a short-term victory, but the subsequent preliminary injunction represents a significant step, allowing her to remain until her case is resolved.
Alfred remains on multiple waitlists for affordable housing and faces uncertainty should she be forced to leave her camp. She argues the lack of housing alternatives would endanger her, exacerbated by her disabilities and vulnerability. Federal Judge Dena Coggins sided with Alfred, stating the city’s actions could threaten her rights under the 14th Amendment by exposing her to harmful conditions.
The city, however, argues that Alfred’s encampment poses health risks and violates building regulations. The court found insufficient evidence to support these claims, leading to a continuation of Alfred’s case towards potential trial or settlement. Vallejo’s motion to dismiss the case is scheduled for a hearing in May.
This case could inform future legal strategies for homeless plaintiffs, as advocates look for ways to challenge encampment removal post the Grants Pass ruling. Alfred’s team also alleged a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, though the court did not uphold this particular claim. However, given a large portion of the unhoused population has disabilities, similar arguments might arise in upcoming legal challenges.
The same legal team is engaged in defending other encampments around California, emphasizing that until substantial investments in shelter and housing are made, such litigation is expected to persist, according to Hochbaum. These cases underscore ongoing tensions between local government actions and the rights of those living without permanent homes.
