Sacramento, CA – Unable to gain traction in state court, Huntington Beach attempted to go to the Ninth Circuit, but was quickly shut down by the court for lack of standing.
In a pointed statement from the Governor’s office, “The federal court of appeals today denied Huntington Beach’s NIMBY attempt to sue the state for enforcing state law that requires the city to build its fair share of housing.”
The Governor sent a pointed message to Huntington Beach and other communities: “California will continue to hold the city accountable and ensure that it builds the housing its community deserves.”
In March 2023, the state sued Huntington Beach for violating various state housing laws.
The Governor’s office noted, “The city retaliated by suing the state in federal court, arguing that enforcing California’s laws requiring cities to build more housing was unconstitutional.”
However, “the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court in rejecting Huntington Beach’s NIMBY lawsuit.”
In a pointed statement, the Governor said, “No more excuses—every city must follow state law and do its part to build more housing.”
The Governor said, “Today, yet another court has slapped down Huntington Beach’s cynical attempt to prevent the state from enforcing our housing laws. Huntington Beach officials’ continued efforts to advance plainly unlawful NIMBY policies are failing their own citizens—by wasting time and taxpayer dollars that could be used to create much-needed housing. No more excuses—every city must follow state law and do its part to build more housing.”
Despite the pointed rhetoric by the Governor’s office, the case at the Ninth Circuit was determined on technical grounds—cities and local jurisdictions do not have standing to raise federal constitutional claims against the state.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the ruling by the district court which had previously dismissed the complaint.
“The City’s claims are foreclosed by our decision in South Lake Tahoe, which forbids political subdivisions and their officials from challenging the constitutionality of state statutes in federal court,” the court wrote in a four page decision Wednesday.
“This court . . . has not recognized any exception to the per se [standing bar], and the broad language of South Lake Tahoe appears to foreclose the possibility of our doing so,” the court previously ruled in 1998.
The court added, “We are not persuaded by the City’s efforts to differentiate South Lake Tahoe. The City argues that our standing bar does not apply because Huntington Beach is a charter city, which it claims is not a ‘political subdivision.’ Yet our precedent has applied South Lake Tahoe’s standing rule to California’s charter cities.”
Further, they noted, “In any case, the City’s federal standing does not turn on the intricacies of California law.”
“I am pleased that yet another court has emphatically rejected Huntington Beach’s attempt to exempt itself from state housing laws,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta.
He added, “While the City has been wasting the public’s time and money pursuing this meritless lawsuit, its neighboring communities—along with every Californian struggling to keep a roof over their heads or wondering where they’re going to sleep tonight—need Huntington Beach to step up and adopt a housing plan without further delay. My office will continue pursuing all remedies in the state case against the City, where the court has already determined the City violated the state’s Housing Element Law.”
That’s hilarious that Huntington Beach’s federal lawsuit was thrown out because that obstructionist city lacked standing.