VALLEJO, CA – A federal judge has temporarily blocked the city of Vallejo from evicting Evelyn Alfred, a 64-year-old unhoused woman, ruling the city’s failure to provide alternative shelter may violate her constitutional rights.
KQED reports the decision comes amid a wave of California cities enforcing stricter anti-encampment laws following a recent Supreme Court ruling.
KQED added for Alfred, who has been unhoused for over two decades and lives, with disabilities, in the small two-room structure she built to provide shelter and stability.
Yet, in October, city officials gave her just 72 hours to vacate, citing municipal regulations. Alfred told KQED, “All of a sudden, I got a notice…I can’t move in 72 hours. There’s no way.”
KQED noted California municipalities, including Fremont and Vallejo, have moved to crack down on encampments. According to the National Homelessness Law Center, at least 40 jurisdictions have tightened laws since the ruling which earlier this month adopted what’s believed to be one of the broadest anti-camping laws in the nation, writes KQED.
However, in Alfred’s case, U.S. District Court Judge Dena Coggins found that Vallejo’s actions likely violated her due process rights, reports KQED.
The court determined that removing Alfred without offering housing and banning her from camping anywhere would “expose her to more dangerous conditions than she currently faces,” KQED reported.
Judge Coggins also noted that Vallejo failed to connect Alfred with any services and may have violated its own policies by providing only 65 hours, an apparent violation of its own policies, said KQED.
Attorney Tristia Bauman of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley explained, “It sends a message that the courts recognize unhoused people have multiple constitutional rights that may be violated by criminalization or sweeps policies.”
According to KQED, critics argue the Supreme Court has already upheld the authority of cities to regulate encampments..
Ilan Wurman, an attorney representing business owners against cities in an effort to force them to clean encampments, told KQED, “The courts are going to see through it. The nub of the Supreme Court’s prior ruling was that these municipal regulations and ordinances fit comfortably within a longstanding tradition of reasonable police powers.”
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor had suggested the due process clause could be used to challenge “anti-homelessness ordinances,” writing that it “may well place constitutional limits” on such policies, writes KQED, noting this legal strategy was used by Alfred’s attorneys but arguments had only been successful in buying unhoused people a few extra days or weeks to pack their belongings before being forced to leave.
Attorney Andrea Henson, who has represented numerous unhoused individuals, including Alfred’s Vallejo suit, told KQED it’s been difficult to stop encampment sweeps post the Supreme Court’s decision.
“It’s been extraordinarily hard going to court about these [sweeps] because of the environment,” Henson said, adding she hopes they’ll look to Alfred’s legal victory as a cautionary tale.
The local chapter of the California Homeless Union filed the initial lawsuit before legal advocates, reports KQED, noting union member Eli Smith saw the news as a victory and said “the goal is to build leadership and build a movement. I am hoping that it will help not just fortify the tools we have to fight and set a legal precedent, which is incredibly significant.”
Alfred, who is now waiting for approval for subsidized senior housing, told KQED, “If anybody’s homeless, I just tell them to fight. They don’t have the right to do what they’re doing to us, so just fight and let everybody know that you’re human, too.”
