In a decision that could have implications for encampments throughout California and beyond, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday overturned a District Court’s order protecting camp residents from being evicted from a Caltrans property. The Appeals Court held that the District Court had “legally erred” and “abused its discretion” in finding for the camp residents.
The encampment is located on an exit ramp for Interstate 80, near Berkeley and Emeryville, on property belonging to Caltrans. The transportation agency had been trying for nearly two years to clear the encampment, arguing that it was a “Level 1” priority (the most urgent) that posed a “critical safety concern.” The camp was a risk to both motorists and the campers themselves, Caltrans argued. The campers also had “broken into Caltrans electrical boxes,” which can “trip breakers, overload circuits [and] impact…display signs.” Caltrans offered the evicted campers access to “a warehouse-type group structure,” Horizon Transitional Village, in Berkeley.
Caltrans was sued by a pro-homeless group, Where Do We Go Berkeley (WDWG), which claimed that “most of the individual plaintiffs [campers] had mental disabilities which made the Horizon shelter inaccessible and that clearing the encampments would leave them with nowhere to go,” in violation of the Martin v. Boise court decision.
WDWG demanded an injunction halting the eviction. They presented a novel argument: rather than claim that an eviction would violate Martin v. Boise, WDWG alleged that clearing the encampment “violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)” because the “mental disabilities” the campers suffered from supposedly made Horizon inaccessible to them. This was the essence of the case, Where Do We Go v. California Department of Transportation.
In its ruling, which was filed on Wednesday, the Appeals Court issued a stinging rebuke of the District Court. First, the Appeals Court noted that Caltrans “is not the appropriate entity to provide social services or relocation assistance” to homeless people, regardless of what Martin v. Boise says, or what people think it says. Because “the risks posed by the encampment are too urgent to allow campers to stay,” Caltrans has the right to immediately clear the area. Doing so does not violate the ADA because “[P]ublic entities [such as Caltrans] are not required to create new programs that provide heretofore unprovided services to assist disabled persons.” Caltrans is not in the business of providing people with housing solutions, the Appeals Court ruled, “and cannot make clearing level 1 encampments dependent on when the people living there can relocate.”
In upholding Caltrans, the Appeals Court blasted the District Court for “not properly analyz[ing] the merits of the case for establishing a preliminary injunction.” The Appeals Court ruled that WDWG’s claims “were not plausible” and thus the District Court’s ruling was “VACATED AND REMANDED” [capitals in the original ruling].
As readers know, the Coalition for a Better Oakland has long considered Martin v. Boise unsettled and therefore challengeable law. Cities and municipalities, including Oakland, have repeatedly cited Martin v. Boise as the reason why they cannot clear encampments, even those that pose critical public safety risks. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just poked a big hole in that excuse. We’ll have to see where this goes, but hopefully, it’s the beginning of the end for Martin v. Boise.
Steve Heimoff