Cal Poly Humboldt’s new research vessel docked in the bay today, accompanied by a procession of other boats, welcomed by a crowd of landlubbers, and christened by a specially made bottle of Champagne.

The R/V North Wind is Humboldt’s oceanographic research boat, capable of carrying 40 people and hitting 24 knots. It sailed all the way down from Bellingham over the last couple weeks after completing sea trials. Constructed by ship company All American Marine, the aluminum catamaran is 78 feet long and powered by two engines capable of putting out 1,100 horsepower apiece. It’s also decked out with equipment that can measure both physical and biological characteristics of the ocean floor.

Humboldt will still use its old research vessel, the Coral Sea, for a little while before selling it somewhere out of California. According to CPH’s interim president Michael Spagna, its older engines can’t pass California’s emissions standards. 

The North Wind cost $7.9 million and was purchased with funds from the polytechnic grant.

At the tail end of last night’s five-hour meeting, the Eureka City Council unanimously passed a “sanctuary city” resolution to protect undocumented immigrants living in the city. 

The resolution — linked here — bars the city from using its resources for immigration enforcement and prohibits the Eureka Police Department from sharing immigration-related information with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “unless required by federal or state law.” The resolution does not prevent enforcement against people convicted of serious and violent crimes.

Speaking at last night’s meeting, City Attorney Autumn Luna said the resolution adheres to state law and “shares a lot of commonalities” with sanctuary policies adopted by the County of Humboldt and the City of Arcata. She also acknowledged the nationwide crackdown on federal immigration enforcement and recent efforts by the Trump administration to defund communities that refuse to comply with federal immigration officials.

“[T]hese issues are being litigated currently, and there has been no judgment from any court that would prevent the city from taking the action today. I just want to be clear about that,” Luna said, adding that she and her staff will continue to monitor the situation. “[N]othing about this policy prevents enforcement against folks who have committed crimes. This is about civil federal immigration policy and the city’s directive that we not use city resources to assist in civil federal immigration policy enforcement. I think that’s a really important distinction.”

Turning to questions from the council, Councilmember Kati Moulton asked EPD Chief Brian Stephens if he thought the resolution would make Eureka less safe. 

Stephens

“I don’t believe the resolution will change the way the community members will feel — definitely not feel unsafe,” Stephens said. “It’s our mission to continue to serve the community no matter whether the resolution is in place or not. … Nothing has changed [in] the way the Eureka Police Department serves our community. We’re open to anyone that’s victimized to come forward, and we’ll take care of them and do all we can to solve their crime.” 

Stephens also shared a brief statement emphasizing his department’s “ongoing mission” to foster trust between residents and law enforcement and ensure “that everyone feels safe to seek help with crimes, regardless of immigration status, background or circumstance.”

More than three dozen people spoke during the hour-long public comment portion of the meeting. Eureka resident Carmen Elena, who immigrated to the United States from Mexico, called on the city council to “push back against the systems that seek to divide and dehumanize us.”

“Let’s be honest about why so many immigrants are here in the first place,” Elena said. “Many have fled violence, economic destabilization, political upheaval [and] conditions created or worsened by U.S. foreign policies. From military interventions to trade agreements that have gutted local economies, our government has played a direct role in forcing people to leave their countries of origin. And yet, when they arrive here seeking safety, they are often met with detention, deportation, hostility, or are merely welcomed as a surplus disposable labor force.”

Brenda Perez, executive director of Centro del Pueblo, praised the city council for considering the resolution, noting that the sanctuary city movement is a way to “repair historical mistakes.”

“My hope with this resolution … is that the local law enforcement [will] stop the racial profiling,” Perez said. “[I]t is time that we are equal in front of the law. It is time for the cities, for every institution [to] treat us as equals. … I will say that for the first time since I migrated here, I feel like ‘We the people’ is real. We all — immigrants, citizens, documented and undocumented — we are all the same in front of a sanctuary status.”

Several other speakers drew comparisons between U.S. immigration policies and Nazi Germany. Eureka resident Peter Pennekamp said his father came to the U.S. as a political refugee after his “whole family died in Auschwitz.” He added that current policies make it extremely difficult for people to immigrate to the United States. 

Pennekamp

“We do not make it easy for people to come here. Everyone has to fight for it, [and] they don’t get treated well,” Pennekamp said. “This is a rough place to land. … Anything we can do that provides us comfort, that gives people the message that they count and that this country actually has an ideal or two that’s left alive — it’s going to be found in places like this. I commend you for looking at this and I stand totally behind [you].”

Eureka resident Cornelius Loewenstein, a first generation immigrant, also shared his family’s story of fleeing Nazi Germany, but had a much different stance on U.S. immigration policies. Loewenstein said he stands for immigration “as long as it’s legal” and advocated for increased enforcement.

“Why should I jump through all the rules?” he asked, beating his fist on the podium. “Why should I have to wait my turn? … It is shameful to even consider to break federal immigration law, and I hope that [ICE] comes after you. I hope that [border czar Tom] Homan comes after you. … I hope you will be held accountable for being the anti-American pieces of filth that you are, dirty communists.”

Eureka resident Stephen Parr also spoke against the resolution, accusing the council of virtue-signaling. He falsely claimed that the only people at risk of deportation are illegal immigrants who’ve committed crimes. “The only people they’re talking about deporting are the people that have committed further crimes, and if you want to support them, then go to hell,” Parr said.

(To be clear, anyone without legal status could be subject to arrest or deportation. While the Trump administration has targeted people with criminal convictions, thousands of others have been arrested. An article recently published in ProPublica states that “less than half of the approximately 8,200 people arrested from Jan. 20 through Feb. 2 so far have criminal convictions.”)

Fernandez

Following public comment, Councilmember G. Mario Fernandez made a motion to adopt the resolution and declare Eureka a sanctuary city. The action was seconded by Councilmember Moulton. 

Fernandez also disputed a previous commenter’s assertion that undocumented people are soaking off the government. “These are people who willingly work and contribute without reaping much — if any — benefits other than the hopeful feelings that they have of safety and community.” 

Addressing Parr’s accusation of “virtue-signaling,” Councilmember Moulton rhetorically asked why “displaying your ideals and principles is somehow a bad thing.”

Moulton

“The virtues that I would like to signal right now are compassion and community,” she continued. “I would like to communicate to all members of our community that they are valued [and] they deserve equal access to opportunity and equal protection under the law. I’m grateful that you’re here, grateful that we’re here with you and grateful that my human family is so big and diverse.”

Councilmember Leslie Castellano joined the chorus in underscoring her support for the resolution and thanked Chief Stephens for continuing to build trust with all residents. She also encouraged the city manager to collaborate with local rapid response networks to combat misinformation surrounding ICE activity in the city. 

Councilmember Renee Contreras-DeLoach talked about her family’s roots in Mexico and how immigration policies have flip-flopped over the years “based on the values [of] the elected leaders of those times.” She shared an emotional story about an unexpected ICE raid that occurred during her time as an elected official in Utah in the early 2000s.

“They had gone to a factory and just rounded people up, and it stuck with me,” she said, her voice wavering with emotion. “It’s something that I’m never going to forget. There were children on porches sitting, waiting for parents that didn’t show up, and there were children at school who were waiting who didn’t get picked up. I never want to contribute in any way, shape or form to something like that happening to anybody in our community.”

Councilmember Scott Bauer also spoke in favor of the resolution, quoting from the inscription on the Statue of Liberty’s tablet: Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. 

“That’s the value that we’re talking about here, right? We believe that,” he said. “And I think about people who say you should [immigrate] legally. I want to say to them, ‘What would you do for your … family to make them safe, to provide for them, to make them hope for a better life?’ … You know what you would do. You would do whatever it takes.”

Mayor Kim Bergel also shared an emotional story about one of her students who feared their parents would be deported. “He said, ‘My parents won’t leave the house,’ and I felt so upset about that because what can I do? Not a heck of a lot,” she said.  “But tonight, I’m proud and honored to be here with all of you and to be able to go to school tomorrow and say, ‘Hey, guess what? This is what our council … community came together to make happen.’”

The council approved the resolution in a unanimous 5-0 vote.

###

What else happened at last night’s meeting? Check back tomorrow for more coverage!

Press release from the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office:

On Mar. 3, 2025, at around 8 p.m., a Humboldt County Sheriff’s deputy on patrol in the area of Vance Ave. and Pedro Ln. in Samoa observed a male subject walking along the roadway. The deputy contacted the subject, who falsely identified himself but was later identified as John Barton, 36, of Samoa. 

While conducting this investigation, the deputy observed Barton turn his body away and toss a plastic bag over the roadway barricade. The deputy subsequently recovered the bag and collected it for testing. The deputy confirmed with the Emergency Communications Center that Barton had two felony warrants for his arrest, a misdemeanor warrant for his arrest, and was on formal probation.

While the deputy waited for the records check to return, Barton stated that he was having difficulty breathing and fell to the ground. Medical personnel arrived on scene and Barton was transported to a local hospital. The deputy observed a second plastic bag on the ground near Barton and collected it for testing. 

The deputy tested the substances found in the bags and confirmed that Barton had 7.41g of methamphetamine in his possession.

Barton was then medically cleared by the hospital and transported to the Humboldt County Correctional Facility to be booked for the following charges:

• Violation of probation—PC 1203.2(a)
• Giving a false ID to a police officer—PC 148.9(a)
• Possession of methamphetamine—H&S 11377(a)

Anyone with information about this case or related criminal activity is encouraged to call the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office at (707) 445-7251 or the Sheriff’s Office Crime Tip line at (707) 268-2539.

After years of planning, research, and engineering development, Humboldt County is getting its first hydrogen-powered bus at the end of this month.

It’s been a long time coming. The Humboldt Transit Authority received a $38.7 million grant back in 2022 from the California State Transportation Agency’s Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program to build a fleet of hydrogen buses, four years after initial studies began. The process wasn’t as easy as simply buying one and having it shipped here; HTA worked with Canadian bus manufacturer New Flyer to develop a bus that can drive about 400 miles without refueling. A typical hydrogen bus can only cover about 300, and an electric bus doesn’t even crack 150. HTA ordered the bus last year, but supply chain issues prevented it from being ready until now. 

It’ll be the first of many. In about three years, all 16 HTA buses will be a  hydrogen-powered Xcelsior Charge H2TM.

It won’t be a development totally unique to Humboldt. The California Air Resources Board voted back in 2019 to phase out all carbon-emitting buses by 2029, and the HTA’s bus fleet has to be at least 25% carbon-free by next year.

The hydrogen fueling station for the buses, located at the bus depot, will also be usable by anyone that owns a hydrogen-powered vehicle, though HTA’s general manager Gregg Pratt doesn’t think there’s anyone here who owns one. 

“It’s an exciting time,” Pratt said in an interview with the Outpost yesterday. “We’re the only agency north of the Bay that’s started [using hydrogen] yet.”

Press release from the Arcata School District:

At its June 18, 2024 meeting the Arcata School District Board of Trustees approved the purchase of Yondr Phone Pouches for use at Sunny Brae Middle School (SBMS) for the 2024/2025 school year. SBMS staff had taken notice of the same concerning device usage trends that prompted Governor Newsom’s recent signing of AB 3216, the Phone-Free School Act. In a press release celebrating the signing of AB 3216, the Governor’s office shared that:

“Excessive smartphone use among youth is linked to increased anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 72% of high school and 33% of middle school teachers report cell phone distractions as a major problem. Common Sense Media found that 97% of students use their phones during the school day for a median of 43 minutes. Combined with the U.S. Surgeon General’s warning about the risks of social media, it is urgent to provide reasonable guardrails for smartphone use in schools.”

At SBMS the implementation of new cell phone management protocols has been a huge success. Every morning students have their phones sealed in a magnetized pouch and at the end of the school day student phone pouches are unsealed using a magnet. While seeking approval for the phone pouch program, SBMS Principal, Angela Landy, was questioned by the school board and superintendent as to how this new program would be different from strictly enforcing the existing policy and taking cell phones away from habitual offenders. Principal Landy shared that due to the cost of some of the student devices, staff can be reluctant to take them away themselves and students are sometimes extremely resistant to handing over their phones. The new pouch program removes this conflict and honors that there may be addictive elements to student cell phone usage. Under the new program, phones remain in the possession of students, but are turned off and sealed so that they do not cause a distraction at school.

SBMS Teacher Phil Purcell shared that “it’s actually been kind of amazing - students are playing games and really talking to each other at break and lunch time. I was optimistic, but it has been even better than expected.”

When asked for comment, Arcata School District Superintendent, Luke Biesecker, echoed Mr. Purcell’s sentiments. “I have to admit that I was initially a little uncertain about the program. Cell phones are a reality and students do need to learn how to appropriately use them. However, in listening to Principal Landy and her staff, the pouch program may be the most age-appropriate way for helping to teach middle school students time and place appropriateness.” In addition to an unlocking magnet in the office, there are unlocking magnets in each classroom giving teachers the flexibility to unlock student devices in case of an emergency or for use during a special project.

Biesecker further shared that while he has not received any negative feedback directly regarding the program, he does know that a few parents expressed concern to Principal Landy. “I attended the SBMS Back to School Night this year and when Ms. Landy brought up the cell phone pouches, I thought we were going to get booed out of the building. Instead, we received an overwhelming, audible applause. I think parents know better than anybody how difficult it is to manage middle schooler cell phone use.”

When asked about the impact on students, Principal Landy shared that one student reported to her how freeing it was not to have to worry about checking their phone during the school day. “Some of the students have even started decorating their phone pouches and really personalizing them.”

When asked about the biggest impact the phone cases have had from their perspective, SBMS 7th graders Emilia Yorton and Abby Morgan shared that they no longer see students on their phones in the bathroom.

While there seems to be general consensus that the Yondr pouches have had a positive impact on the school climate at SBMS, some of the improvement may be due in part to a number of other measures put in place over the last few years - including student discipline reforms, increased social emotional supports for students, equity trainings for staff, and student attendance improvement efforts. However, both Biesecker and Landy are quick to give substantial credit to the new cell phone management program, sharing that student discipline referrals, student suspensions, and student absenteeism numbers are all down significantly at this point in the school year, compared to last year.

###

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

###

California’s legislative leaders don’t think the public should know whether federal agents are investigating state lawmakers for public corruption, nor do they believe taxpayers should know how much of their money the Legislature is spending on criminal defense lawyers.

Following recent reports that Southern California Sen. Susan Rubio has been questioned in a federal public corruption investigation, CalMatters filed requests with the state Assembly and Senate seeking copies of federal law enforcement subpoenas and search warrants dating to 2020.

CalMatters also sought under the California Legislative Open Records Act invoices or other records showing how much money the Legislature has spent since 2020 on legal bills related to federal criminal investigations.

Identical letters from the Rules Committees for the Assembly and Senate cited four reasons for denying the record requests including “the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.”

The offices of Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire didn’t respond to CalMatters’ interview requests.

But the secrecy alarms open-government advocates.

“The public absolutely has a right to know whether … one of their representatives or public officials is under criminal investigation,” said Sean McMorris of California Common Cause, a non-profit, non-partisan organization that advocates for government transparency and accountability.

David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, another government transparency advocacy group, said the citation about the disclosure not serving the public interest “is the last refuge of the scoundrel and is invoked whenever somebody wants to withhold something inconvenient.”

The Legislative Open Records Act, first signed in 1975, gives lawmakers and their staff members more discretion to withhold records than most other public agencies have under the similar California Public Records Act.

But Loy said that even if they have a legal right to withhold records, public agencies usually have broad discretion to release them. In other words, they could release these records in the interest of transparency if they wanted to.

“Even if (secrecy) might be allowed under the letter of law in some circumstances, that is not a position that I think serves the public well,” he said. “We should err on the side of disclosure. The public has a right to know.”

In addition to the public interest citation, the Senate and Assembly letters cited three other reasons for denying the records. It said the Legislative Open Records Act allows documents to be “exempt from mandatory disclosure” if the records:

• “Are in the custody of the Legislative Counsel.”
• Are prohibited or not required for release by state or federal law.
• Involve issues of attorney-client privilege.

“Records responsive to your request, to the extent they exist, fall within the scope of the foregoing exemptions and will not be produced,” the letters said.

Rubio’s office didn’t answer questions Tuesday about whether she or her office has received any search warrants or subpoenas, who her attorney is, and whether taxpayer funds were spent on her legal defense.

Federal officials have not identified Rubio by name in the corruption probe, which has ensnared a handful of other officials in San Bernardino County, Compton, Commerce and Baldwin Park.

However, no one else matches the description of “Person 20,” who was accused in recently released federal court documents of asking for $240,000 in bribes from a cannabis company and accepting $30,000 in illegal campaign contributions.The allegations stem from when Rubio was a member of the Baldwin Park City Council.

The Senate Rules Committee this week rejected CalMatters’ request for records that might detail which officials have been linked to federal public corruption investigations as well as how much taxpayers have been paying for criminal defense attorneys.

Rubio emphatically denied accepting bribes in an interview with CalMatters’ reporting partner, CBS News, that aired in January. But when asked if she denied that she was “Person 20” she responded, “I’m not saying that.”

“I’m just saying that you read the report,” she continued. “And whatever is happening there is happening there, but I think that (investigators) would have to reach out to me in order for me to be part of any of this.”

Rubio’s office previously told the Los Angeles Times in a statement that she “volunteered hours of her time” aiding the authorities in their investigation and that she “has no reason to believe that she would be included in any criminal allegations.”

Legislative Republicans called for a Senate Ethics Committee investigation, but the committee declined, saying long-standing Senate rules prohibit investigation of allegations that are more than three years old.

“Since the alleged activities occurred many years ago, the committee does not have jurisdiction to review this matter,” the committee’s chief counsel, Erin V. Peth, told CalMatters last month.

Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher, a lawyer who represents the Chico area, said that everyone, including lawmakers, has a right to be presumed innocent in criminal investigations.But taxpayers also have a right to know, he said, “what kind of taxpayer money has been spent defending people in federal investigations.”

###

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

###

The Bay Area city of Vallejo is putting California cities’ newfound power to clear homeless encampments to the test.

A federal judge last month stopped the city from dismantling the makeshift shelter of 64-year-old Evelyn Alfred, which she erected nearly two years ago on an empty strip of land next to a residential neighborhood. The ruling proves that, even as more cities in California crack down on encampments with sweeps and criminal charges, there are pathways open for unhoused people to fight back.

“I think now what this shows is that there is hope,” said Andrea Henson, an attorney who represents Alfred and also leads the Berkeley-based nonprofit aid organization Where Do We Go?

Before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last summer in a case out of Grants Pass, Oregon, Alfred’s win might not have been a big deal. Back then, legal precedent said it was “cruel and unusual” to punish people for sleeping outside if they had nowhere else to go. As a result, cities had to be careful to offer shelter before clearing a camp. If they didn’t, a judge might very well step in and stop the sweep.

That all changed in June, when the court caused a dramatic shift by finding, in Grants Pass v. Johnson, that cities can ban people from setting up homeless encampments even if there are no shelter beds available.

The recent order stopping Vallejo from clearing Alfred’s camp appears to be the first such federal injunction since the Grants Pass decision, according to several legal experts interviewed by CalMatters.

“Cities and other governmental entities have been using the Grants Pass decision as if it was a green light (to clear encampments),” said Anthony Prince, one of the attorneys representing Alfred. This ruling, he said, proves that thinking is wrong.

Representatives from the city of Vallejo did not respond to CalMatters interview requests.

Many city leaders and even California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, had cheered the Supreme Court decision, assuming it would give local governments freedom to remove camps that had taken over sidewalks, city parks and other public spaces. Advocates for the rights of unhoused people were appalled, worried cities would now indiscriminately criminalize people just for being homeless.

But this recent Vallejo case shows it’s not so simple. As a result, legal experts and other attorneys who represent homeless plaintiffs throughout the state are paying attention to Alfred’s fight to stay put.

“I think we’re all watching closely to see what the courts will do,” said Ron Hochbaum, a law professor and director of the Buccola Family Homeless Advocacy Clinic at the University of the Pacific.

Evelyn Alfred’s court battle

The dwelling Alfred is fighting to keep is made out of tarps, wood and other materials, and has a roof, windows and a locking door, according to court documents. Her lawyers argued it’s the only thing that protects Alfred — who walks with a cane and wears a back brace due to her osteoarthritis and other medical conditions — from the elements.

The city of Vallejo first informed Alfred of its intent to remove her camp in October, and Alfred sued shortly after. In November, a federal judge temporarily blocked the city from clearing Alfred’s camp by issuing a temporary restraining order — an order that lasts until the court holds a hearing on the issue.

In February, the court granted a preliminary injunction, which is a much bigger win: It lasts longer and comes only after both sides have made extensive arguments in court and the judge has had ample time to deliberate. This appears to be the first one issued in federal court since Grants Pass. It means Alfred can stay put until her case settles or goes to trial.

Alfred is on several waitlists for affordable housing, but hasn’t yet been offered a placement, according to her lawyers. When she asked where she could go if she were to leave her campsite, the city’s attorney said she could not camp anywhere else in Vallejo, according to court documents. The city does not provide shelter or transitional housing. Therefore, Alfred’s lawyers argued, she would be put in harm’s way if she were forced to leave her camp, especially due to her age, physical and mental disabilities and, as a woman, her vulnerability to sexual assault.

U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins sided with Alfred.

“Removing Plaintiff’s shelter while knowing Plaintiff has no alternatives is likely to expose her to more dangerous conditions than she currently faces by depriving her of protection from the elements, hygiene facilities, and access to life essentials, creating a known and particularized danger to Plaintiff’s safety and welfare,” she wrote.

City workers sweep clean the area of a former homeless encampment on Merlin Street in San Francisco on Aug. 9, 2024. Photo by Manuel Orbegozo for CalMatters

If the city knowingly puts Alfred in danger, that could violate her right to “due process” under the 14th Amendment, Coggins wrote.

The city, on the other hand, argued it should be allowed to remove Alfred’s camp because the camp presents health hazards caused by human waste, her makeshift dwelling violates multiple building codes, and in erecting the dwelling, she damaged a city-owned fence.

“Plaintiff has been properly noticed and provided with additional time to remove her encampment,” attorneys for the city wrote in a court filing. “The City must now be allowed to enforce its law and remove Plaintiff’s encampment.”

But Coggins found no proof that Alfred’s camp presents any “weighty” health and safety concerns.

Now the case will continue on toward a trial or settlement. The city has filed a motion to dismiss, which Coggins is scheduled to hear in May.

What does this mean for future homeless plaintiffs?

Before 2018, homeless plaintiffs often used the 14th Amendment (the basis for Alfred’s win) and the 4th Amendment (which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government) to challenge encampment sweeps in court.

Then, the federal Ninth Circuit appellate court ruled in Martin v. Boise that punishing unhoused people for camping in public if they have nowhere else to go violates the 8th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. After that, the 8th Amendment became the weapon of choice for lawyers representing unhoused people.

And it got results. In 2022, lawyers using the 8th Amendment to sue San Francisco won a major victory: an order that stopped the city from enforcing several anti-camping laws as long as there weren’t enough shelter beds available.

Then, last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Grants Pass was not engaging in cruel and unusual punishment by banning encampments despite a lack of shelter beds. Suddenly, the 8th Amendment was off the table. Now, homeless plaintiffs and the lawyers who represent them are turning to other strategies. The Vallejo case proves that those can still work, even as cities throughout California ban encampments.

Alfred’s attorneys also claimed the city of Vallejo violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate Alfred’s disabilities as it tried to clear her camp. Coggins disagreed because the city granted Alfred more time to move, and granted her request for help packing her belongings.

“I think we’re all watching closely to see what the courts will do.”
— Ron Hochbaum, law professor, University of the Pacific

But legal experts said disabilities act claims are likely to pop up in future cases. In a 2023 survey of homeless Californians, one in five said they used a cane, walker, wheelchair or other mobility aid, according to the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative. Survey participants also reported that shelters and subsidized housing weren’t accessible.

“That’s certainly an issue,” said Laura Riley, a social justice attorney and law professor at UC Berkeley. “We know that people who are unhoused disproportionately have disabilities. The plaintiff in this case has multiple disabilities, both mobility and mental health disabilities. So making sure that they honor the protections of the ADA for the unhoused population is important. And we know that that’s not happening, especially during sweeps.”

Alfred’s injunction may not stand alone for long. The same lawyers who represent her also sued the city of Berkeley to stop the removal of a camp at 8th and Harrison streets. Another lawsuit is attempting to stop an encampment sweep in the Marin County town of Fairfax.

“Until localities and the state make the appropriate investments in shelter and housing,” Hochbaum said, “this litigation is going to continue.”