BERKELEY, Calif. — A federal court ruling over the weekend imposed significant limits on the City of Berkeley’s ability to enforce laws affecting unhoused residents, marking a pivotal development in ongoing legal challenges over encampment sweeps and public health enforcement.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a series of rulings over the weekend in Berkeley Homeless Union v. City of Berkeley and Prado v. City of Berkeley preventing the City of Berkeley from enforcing laws that endangered unhoused residents.
According to a press release from the Berkeley Homeless Union, the case arose from several enforcement actions by the city to clear the Eighth and Harrison Streets encampment, “one of Berkeley’s largest unhoused communities.”
As stated by the release, “Residents have faced ongoing sweeps, towing and loss of essential belongings. While the Court did not prohibit the City from clearing the encampment, it imposed clear guardrails on how enforcement may proceed.”
In an article by The Berkeley Scanner this February, city staff “posted closure notices around the neighborhood, requiring everyone to leave the encampment by Feb. 24,” citing the presence of leptospirosis, a bacterial disease potentially fatal to humans.
The closure notices included that anyone camped or parked between San Pablo Avenue and the railroad tracks from Codornices Creek down to Gilman Street must move at least one-third of a mile away so the city can complete critical “rodent abatement” work.
Many residents were critical of this action, claiming that the city was exaggerating public health risks in order to sweep Eighth and Harrison Streets, an encampment “where, according to the BHU, about 40 people live.”
Residents observed the city’s failure to provide “real accommodations” to unhoused individuals who would be displaced due to the notice.
Berkeley Homeless Union plaintiff Amber Whitson stated, “We are demanding designated relocation sites, sanitation and real accommodations, not displacement disguised as an effort to ensure public health.”
Previously, in June 2025, the City of Berkeley conducted a “surprise sweep operation” at the same encampment, according to an article by Western Regional Advocacy Project.
“Those who did not immediately follow orders were roused with smoke canisters and less-lethal firearms. As of this writing, less-lethal rounds were fired at one encampment resident, and he was arrested soon after,” it adds.
These separate instances prompted advocates to motion for “significant limits on how the City enforces laws against unhoused residents,” including limiting practices that deprive unhoused people of their tents and vehicles, as stated by the press release from the Berkeley Homeless Union.
Two press conferences were held on April 4 where advocates “petition[ed] the mayor to place on the Berkeley City Council’s agenda a resolution rescinding the city’s two appeals in the Berkeley Homeless Union case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals” that would endanger the rights of unhoused individuals “across the Western United States.”
“This case is not just about Berkeley. It is about whether cities can use unreasonable rules and sweeps to push unhoused people out of public spaces without ever considering their disabilities,” claimed Yesica Prado, president of the Berkeley Homeless Union.
Judge Edward Chen ordered a series of rulings, which are cited by the press release.
These included “Protection of Tents and Shelter,” in which the court barred Berkeley from enforcing its three-by-three-feet encampment rule, arguing that most tents cannot fit within that space. This enforcement squarely limits unhoused individuals’ access to shelter.
Another ruling involves “Limits on Vehicle Seizures,” and states that “vehicles used as homes cannot be towed or seized without a specific, individualized determination that they pose a concrete threat to public health or safety.”
The final key ruling cited by the press release was “Disability Accommodations Required.”
Having ruled that Berkeley violated the Americans with Disabilities Act “by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to unhoused residents with disabilities,” the release noted that “the city must now engage in individualized assessments and provide modifications where necessary, including in the enforcement of parking and encampment rules.”
Anthony Prince, attorney for the Berkeley Homeless Union, responded to the rulings with both hope and concern for a step forward in the rights of unhoused individuals.
“Although we are disappointed about parts of the Court’s orders, we are pleased that in his 74-page, carefully considered ruling, Judge Chen found that certain longstanding policies of the City of Berkeley violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and constituted a state-created danger,” Prince said.
He expressed that the BHU was currently reviewing the orders, “but are encouraged that the Court has retained jurisdiction to make sure the city complies with the specific measures that Judge Chen has instructed be taken.”
Prado said, “We did not win everything. But we won something that no one can take away: our homes. The Court made sure that when we leave, we can take our tents, our vehicles, and still camp with each other without facing serial evictions. That is not nothing. That is hope.”
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.
