- The lawsuit argues the order unlawfully undermines the state’s own housing laws, deepens the housing emergency created by the fires, and gives wealthy jurisdictions improper power to block modest infill housing.
LOS ANGELES – Nearly one year after the Eaton and Palisades fires destroyed thousands of homes across Los Angeles County, YIMBY Law has filed a sweeping legal challenge to Governor Gavin Newsom’s July 2025 Executive Order suspending SB 9 in high fire hazard severity zones within the burn areas.
The lawsuit argues the order unlawfully undermines the state’s own housing laws, deepens the housing emergency created by the fires, and gives wealthy jurisdictions improper power to block modest infill housing.
In the 37-page Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, YIMBY Law and co-petitioners Sonja Trauss and Andrew Slocum argue that the governor’s suspension of SB 9 “violates the California Emergency Services Act because it does not ‘mitigat[e] the effects’ of an existing emergency” and “violates the California Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine because it flies in the face of the Legislature’s recent decision expressly authorizing SB 9 in these areas.”
The complaint emphasizes that the fires were extinguished months before the governor acted, stating: “The fires were extinguished by January 31, 2025, but they left a housing emergency in their wake.” It quotes Governor Newsom’s own Executive Order N-29-25 acknowledging that the destruction “will reduce the availability of housing in the region, which is likely to further increase the cost of housing and the related crisis of homelessness if housing is not expeditiously rebuilt.”
YIMBY Law argues that SB 9 is essential to that rebuilding.
The petition states: “SB 9 could be a lifeline for fire victims, and its suspension harms the people who suffered the greatest losses.” Many burned-out homeowners, the complaint notes, “discovered that their homes were underinsured, and they lack sufficient capital to rebuild.”
Allowing an owner to add a second unit or split a lot, the petition says, “would make it financially feasible to remain in their community.”
The petition frames the governor’s order as a response to political pressure, not safety. It describes “the lobbying influence of small, highly-connected, wealthy communities, and their ability to stop a type of housing they dislike, even in the midst of a generational housing crisis.”
The complaint highlights a letter from the Pacific Palisades Community Council warning the governor that “the essential, distinctive character of Pacific Palisades … will be irrevocably destroyed” by SB 9.
The petition notes that these concerns “were clearly motivated by concerns about neighborhood character rather than mitigation of an emergency.”
The suit also states that Governor Newsom acted just two days after receiving the Pacific Palisades letter: “Just two days after receiving the letter … Governor Newsom issued an executive order suspending SB 9 in areas affected by the Palisades and Eaton Fires.”
In addition to the governor, the lawsuit targets the jurisdictions that followed his lead. It alleges that the Cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena, and Malibu, along with Los Angeles County, “suspended SB 9 pursuant to the governor’s unlawful order,” actions the complaint describes as “unauthorized, unlawful, and violat[ing] SB 9.”
The petition cites Gov. Code § 8571, arguing that emergency powers may only be used to address the effects of a current emergency, not hypothetical future crises. The complaint states: “The suspension of SB 9 is not related to the mitigation of the effects of the Palisades and Eaton Fires… The stated motivation behind the governor’s order—concern with evacuation routes—is about a potential, future emergency.”
Because the fires were fully contained, the petition concludes, “the suspension of SB 9 serves no emergency mitigation purpose whatsoever.”
The suit further argues that Newsom unlawfully delegated legislative power to cities, writing: “CESA [California Emergency Services Act] does not grant the governor authority to delegate his power to suspend state laws to local officials.”
The petition quotes § 8567(a), emphasizing that only the governor may suspend a statute and that this authority “shall have the force and effect of law.”
The complaint also stresses that the Legislature already addressed fire-safety concerns when it amended SB 9 in 2023: “The Legislature has thoroughly evaluated the policy question of whether to permit SB 9 projects within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones… and recently determined that SB 9 projects should be allowed in such areas, subject to statutory fire-protection standards and limitations.”
Those standards, the petition notes, include fire-safe ingress and egress requirements.
The plaintiffs argue that existing state law already allows cities to block individual SB 9 projects if they pose genuine, unmitigable safety risks. The petition states: “A local agency may deny a proposed SB 9 project if the Building Official makes a written finding… that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety.”
Because that authority exists, YIMBY Law argues, the blanket suspension of SB 9 is unnecessary and illegal.
The complaint also points to inconsistencies in how fire safety is applied. It notes that while SB 9 projects in fire zones must comply with modern mitigation standards, “ADUs and JADUs are not required to comply with these latest fire-safety standards,” even though they also add units and residents.
“All units — whether single-family, ADU, JADU, or SB 9 — would have the same potential impacts,” the petition states.
The lawsuit ultimately contends that the governor’s action represents a significant constitutional violation.
One section states: “The governor cannot override the Legislature’s constitutional legislative authority — effectively wielding a post-facto line-item veto in the name of executive emergency powers.”
YIMBY Law asks the court to invalidate Executive Order N-32-25, nullify all local suspensions of SB 9 made in reliance on it, and order the state and local jurisdictions to comply fully with SB 9’s ministerial approval requirements.
The petition concludes by warning of the broader stakes: “This case demonstrates why the State of California faces a deepening housing crisis. While housing costs continue to rise to unprecedented levels, Respondents are blocking new housing where it is needed most.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
If this doesn’t expose the pure evil of YIMBY I don’t know what does. This cannot be allowed to stand, as it could actually encourage arson as a means of spurring massive development to replace existing neighborhoods with densified housing. I’ve heard conspiracy theories that this was the cause of fire officials failing to extinguish the embers that turned into the Palisade fire despite being reported by residents. While I dismiss these theories, actually creating future incentive is a very bad idea.
This is exactly where the conversation goes off the rails.
Most of the same people making these arguments are perfectly fine with ADUs, and for good reason. ADUs are incremental, homeowner driven, usually financed with existing equity, and rarely destabilize valuation, insurance, or neighborhood continuity.
SB9 second units are different. They touch lot splits, resale dynamics, construction financing, replacement cost insurance, and speculative behavior in ways ADUs generally do not. Those differences matter, and serious people should debate them honestly.
But jumping from that distinction to claims of “pure evil,” arson incentives, or shadowy development schemes is not analysis, it is fear dressed up as virtue.
If you oppose SB9 second units, say that. Explain the valuation impacts, insurance exposure, and equity risk. Those are real and legitimate concerns. What is not legitimate is collapsing nuance into moral panic because the mechanics are uncomfortable or unfamiliar.
Refusing to understand the difference between ADUs and SB9 while accusing others of malice does not protect communities. It just guarantees we keep blocking the good tools while mishandling the complicated ones.
Policy built on hysteria ages poorly. Nuance is not optional if the goal is actually doing less harm.
I actually (sort of) agree with YIMBY Law regarding this issue (as I previously noted elsewhere). In other words, it’s consistent with their stated position (while the governor’s position is not).
Which leads me to believe that YIMBY Law’s “speculation” regarding the governor’s motive is correct.
If Pacific Palisades is “too dangerous” for lot splits, then maybe it’s too dangerous for housing at all.
But more importantly – if YIMBY Law prevails in this case (and is able to effect change in Pacific Palisades), it’s going to doom the entire YIMBY movement. So I do wish them the best regarding this, going forward.
As I’ve previously noted, California hasn’t “suffered enough” yet in regard to a serious effort to remove power from the state via a proposition/change in the state constitution.
And if this doesn’t work, perhaps the 25 story building replacing the Safeway in the Marina district in San Francisco will, since even the YIMBY-oriented mayor and other representatives don’t like it.
Or, perhaps “California Forever” will do the trick.
Stay tuned, and wish them luck.
It’s almost unfortunate that women are only having 1.6 kids nationwide, since that fact alone might cause YIMBY to run out of gas before the electorate has a chance to permanently revolt.