Judge lets Berkeley resume homeless camp evictions but orders certain disability accommodations

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A federal judge delivered a partial victory to the city of Berkeley, California, denying summary judgment for multiple claims brought by a homeless advocacy organization in a case challenging the city’s policies around evicting homeless people from encampments.

In a 74-page order released Friday, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen found the city could resume clearing a longstanding contested encampment without first securing housing or shelter placement for its residents due to concerns over leptospirosis, a bacterial disease that can infect animals and humans with flu-like symptoms.

“The documented conditions — the prevalence of rats, contaminated soil, instances of standing water, creek drainage and rodent harborage sites — establish a plausible and serious human health risk exacerbated by encampment conditions,” the judge wrote, adding, “The city is justified in addressing this public health concern with urgency.”

Chen, a Barack Obama appointee, also found the city is not required to create or identify enforcement-free relocation zones or city-sanctioned campsites where plaintiffs can go, nor is the city required to provide individualized services as disability accommodations, such as portable restrooms, trash cans and battery packs.

“Neither disability has a clear relationship to an ongoing need for the city to install and maintain infrastructure for their individualized use,” he wrote.

The judge additionally sided with the city on claims regarding property seizures of nondisabled individuals, ruling the city’s procedures are lawful for those without disability accommodation requests.

“For those individuals who do not have a disability preventing them from moving their supplies, they do not suffer the same risk as those with disabilities of having their survival property destroyed because of their inability to move it,” he said.

However, Chen found the city violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by not providing reasonable accommodations to certain disabled residents during the planned abatement of the encampment.

The judge said the accommodations, such as assistance with lifting and moving personal belongings, were “specific, medically grounded claims” and are “in the context of a one-time abatement action.” As for concerns over leptospirosis, Chen ruled the city is not required to handle or store anything that is suspected to be contaminated but should replace any destroyed property that is “essential to survival,” such as tents and basic clothing.

“Providing such minimal but essential property would permit disabled residents to move in compliance with the abatement order while preserving their basic health and safety,” he wrote.

The judge also ruled the city must follow a specific process if it wants to impound or destroy vehicles used as shelters, including a determination that the vehicle blocks traffic or poses a health or safety threat; provide the vehicle owner with the written notice; and consider less restrictive alternatives.

The plaintiffs additionally prevailed on claims against the city’s “3x3 rule” that limits personal property on sidewalks to a 9-square-foot area, with Chen writing that it is “virtually impossible” for someone to sleep within the allotted area.

“The city could have provided some modification of allowable space and still allow for safe passage on at least some sidewalks,” he said. “But the city has refused to make any such accommodation, even though it has not demonstrated that such an accommodation would constitute a fundamental alteration or impose an undue burden on the city.”

In an interview with Courthouse News, Anthony Prince, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he was disappointed with the court denying some of the accommodations the plaintiffs sought, but said he felt “good overall” about the judge’s order.

“The city has maintained an extremely hostile posture. They have rejected out of hand every offer we’ve made to settle this case and are determined, unfortunately, to rid the city of its unhoused residents,” Prince said.

He continued: “We’re not going to let them be pushed out without some kind of opportunity to actually have permanent, durable housing.”

Price said he was especially encouraged by the court’s rulings prohibiting the city from seizing and destroying RVs and disapproving of the 3x3 rule.

“We’re encouraged; people get to keep the things that have helped keep them alive,” he said.

A representative for the city of Berkeley did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Chen additionally denied the city’s request to dissolve a preliminary injunction blocking it from evicting homeless residents from camps, and partially granted a motion for a preliminary injunction by the Berkeley Homeless Union in conjunction with the summary judgment order.

The Berkeley Homeless Union filed the lawsuit in February 2025 after it says the city began to intensify the displacement of homeless residents around the city.

The case bears much in common with the Where Do We Go Berkeley case, which Chen is also presiding over. In that case, a similar group of disabled homeless people also sued the city, claiming constitutional violations and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Follow @mhattridge_