By Vanguard Staff
OAKLAND, Calif. — The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the City of Huntington Beach’s challenge to the constitutionality of California’s housing laws, leaving intact a Ninth Circuit ruling dismissing the city’s federal lawsuit and strengthening the state’s enforcement position in an ongoing dispute over housing mandates.
The high court’s denial of Huntington Beach’s petition for a writ of certiorari leaves in place a unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirming dismissal of the city’s constitutional claims. The ruling effectively ends the city’s effort to block enforcement of state housing mandates through the federal courts.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta characterized the outcome as decisive.
“Huntington Beach took its fight to the highest court in the country — and lost. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court officially declined to step in, leaving no doubt that the City must comply with our state housing laws,” said Bonta. “After years of meritless resistance that has wasted taxpayer dollars, Huntington Beach can no longer claim that the U.S. Constitution is on its side. It is not. We look forward to holding the City fully accountable in state court, where we recently secured a decision that requires it to remedy its violations and significantly restricts the City’s local control until it does so.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom also criticized the city’s legal strategy.
“City officials can’t use the First Amendment as an excuse to violate state housing law,” said Newsom. “The Huntington Beach officials who wasted taxpayer dollars on this embarrassing approach rather than doing their jobs ought to be ashamed of themselves. Huntington Beach deserves better. What a waste of taxpayers’ dollars that could have gone to much-needed housing for their community.”
The federal ruling arrives amid a parallel state court battle over Huntington Beach’s failure to adopt a compliant housing element as required under California’s Housing Element Law.
The conflict dates back to March 9, 2023, when Bonta, Newsom and California Department of Housing and Community Development Director Gustavo Velasquez filed suit in state court after the city failed to adopt a housing element by the Oct. 15, 2021 statutory deadline.
In May 2024, the San Diego Superior Court found that Huntington Beach violated state housing law but did not initially impose all the remedies sought by the state. The state then petitioned the California Fourth District Court of Appeal, which directed the lower court to grant the requested relief. Huntington Beach sought review from the California Supreme Court, which denied the petition, allowing the appellate ruling to stand.
On Dec. 19, 2025, the San Diego Superior Court issued an order granting a writ of mandate compelling compliance and imposing extensive remedial measures. The order requires the city to bring its sixth-cycle housing element into substantial compliance with state law and to amend associated zoning provisions accordingly.
Until compliance is achieved, the court has restricted certain local land use powers. The city is prohibited from enforcing planning and zoning provisions to deny or reduce density on sites identified in its regional housing needs allocation analysis. The order also limits the city’s authority to issue zoning changes, grant variances or approve subdivision maps on those sites unless necessary to achieve compliance.
The ruling further mandates expedited processing of qualifying projects, including builder’s remedy applications. It establishes firm approval timelines and provides that failure to meet those deadlines results in automatic approval. The order also requires fast-track approval of projects that would have qualified for by-right treatment under the city’s draft housing element.
The court cited Government Code Section 65585(l), which authorizes escalating penalties for continued noncompliance, including potential appointment of a receiver if violations persist.
In a prior statement regarding the state court ruling, Bonta emphasized the state’s enforcement posture. “After extensive proceedings in the courts, Governor Newsom, HCD Director Velasquez, and I have secured the relief that we sought all along. The City of Huntington Beach has now been ordered to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days,” Bonta said. “Huntington Beach is not above the law. Its leaders must comply with all our laws, including our state’s housing laws. We remain fully committed to ensuring that Huntington Beach does its part to address our state’s housing crisis. It has been squandering public money for far too long trying to shirk that responsibility.”
Newsom, in that same context, rebuked the city’s resistance. “Huntington Beach needs to end this pathetic NIMBY behavior,” he said. “They are failing their own citizens by wasting time and money that could be used to create much-needed housing. No more excuses, you lost once again — it’s time to get building.”
Velasquez underscored the legal principle at stake. “This decision once again reaffirms that no one is above the law, and Huntington Beach can no longer refuse to do its part to address California’s crisis of housing affordability and homelessness,” Velasquez said. “Charter cities are not exempt from state housing law, and the few bad actors who believe so need to stop looking for a way to avoid their responsibilities.”
Huntington Beach’s federal lawsuit argued that state housing mandates infringed upon constitutional protections, including First Amendment rights and local control authority. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed those claims. A unanimous Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal, and the court later denied rehearing en banc. The Supreme Court’s decision to deny review leaves those lower court rulings intact.
Taken together, the state and federal court outcomes signal a firm judicial rejection of Huntington Beach’s efforts to sidestep California’s housing element requirements. With state enforcement continuing and court-ordered remedies in place, the city’s path forward now runs through compliance rather than continued litigation.
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.
There is a lesson for David in this saga. While Davis does have a compliant Housing Element now, if the only avenue to have one in 2029-2030 is through infill, then beginning to get the zoning in place now to support that infill is essential.
Parcels like the 5th and B school district site, and Hibbert Lumber, and the south Davis Ace parcel including the area above the Amtrak parking lot, and the G Street movie theater should all be rezoned for the same density as the north side of Richards Blvd between Trader Joes and 113 … seven stories minimum. Reconsidering the zoning of the Nishi parcel makes sense as well. Currently Nishi is zoned for 3 story apartments at only 27 units per acre. The Nishi 2016 proposal was at 67 units per acre. Rezoning Nishi to that higher density would give the City anywhere between 3,000 and 5,000 units toward meeting the 2029-2030 Housing Element allocation.
We are doomed :-|