UPDATE: On July 23, both sides agreed to settle the lawsuit out of court, pending approval by the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor’s office.
What’s at Stake: Coalition on Homelessness is a challenge to the City and County of San Francisco’s efforts to criminalize homelessness through an array of unconstitutional practices, including confiscating and destroying the personal property of unhoused people without adequate notice or due process, and citing and arresting unhoused people for sleeping in public.
SUMMARY: In September 2022, the ACLU of Northern California and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Coalition on Homelessness and several individual plaintiffs against the City and County of San Francisco and Mayor London Breed, challenging their unconstitutional treatment of unhoused San Franciscans. The lawsuit sought to end the City’s practice of unlawfully seizing and destroying unhoused people’s personal property and citing and arresting unhoused people for sleeping in public, despite having no shelter to go to.
For years, San Francisco has responded to its homelessness crisis by pushing unhoused people out of sight—destroying their survival items and arresting and jailing them for unavoidable behavior like sleeping in public. These regressive mass incarceration-era policies do nothing to address the City’s affordable housing crisis, and only perpetuate homelessness.
In December 2022, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit, directing San Francisco to immediately halt its unconstitutional enforcement of laws that criminalize homelessness and to stop unlawfully seizing and destroying unhoused people’s survival gear and personal property. In granting the order, the Court also acknowledged that the City’s cruel policies have made it more difficult for people to exit homelessness. In January 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this order.
In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson that the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit cities from punishing unhoused people for sleeping in public, even if they have nowhere else to go. That ruling prevented the plaintiffs from pursuing similar claims in this case, but it did not affect the plaintiffs’ remaining claims, which focus on the City’s unlawful destruction of the personal property of unhoused persons. Those claims have survived several motions for dismissal and a motion for summary judgment by the City and are headed to trial during the summer of 2025.
Source: aclunc.org
Lawsuit timeline
Sept. 27, 2022
The Coalition on Homelessness (COH) and seven unhoused San Francisco residents sue the CIty of San Francisco over its practices in homeless sweeps. COH accuses one City department, Public Works, of violating its own “bag and tag” policy by disposing of homeless people’s possessions, including tents, sleeping materials, IDs, medications and other survival gear.
Dec. 23, 2022
In U.S. District Court of Northern California, U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu issues a preliminary injunction, ruling that the City must refrain from dismantling encampments when no shelter is available. Ryu cites Martin v. Boise (2018), which held that ticketing and jailing unhoused people for camping violates EIghth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment.
Aug. 10, 2023
COH offers to settle its case with the City. In rejecting the settlement offer, City Attorney David Chiu decries the offer as “political theater.”
Aug. 23, 2023
Both sides argue before the Ninth Circuit. At issue is the definition of “involuntary homelessness” in the District Court’s ruling. The panel of judges denies the City’s motion to modify previous ruling without prejudice.
Aug. 24, 2023
The District Court denies COH’s request to appoint a “special master” to monitor homeless operations and ensure the City’s compliance with the preliminary injunction.
Sept. 22, 2023
Gov. Gavin Newsom files an “amicus curiae” (or “friend of the court”) brief to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to review the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson. That case focuses on an Oregon city displacing unsheltered residents living outside. Several other cities file similar briefs.
Jan. 12, 2024
SCOTUS announces it will review Grants Pass. The City files a motion to stay COH’s lawsuit pending the SCOTUS decision.
April 11, 2024
The Lawyers’ Committee of Civil Rights, an organization representing COH, files an amicus brief supporting Gloria Johnson, the opposing party in Grants Pass. Over 1,000 briefs supporting Johnson, including one from the Western Regional Advocacy Project, are also filed.
June 28, 2024
SCOTUS announces its 6-3 ruling in favor of Grants Pass, effectively overturning Martin. Under the ruling, punishing people for sleeping outside is no longer unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. COH’s lawyers announce they will continue the lawsuit against the City.
June 8, 2025
Judge Ryu dismisses COH’s claims of “organizational standing” because it was not harmed by the City’s unlawful seizure and destruction of property, though individual members were. However, Ryu ruled, COH may pursue claims based on “associational standing.”
June 12, 2025
Judge Ryu denies the City’s request to toss the lawsuit. She rules that two individual plaintiffs—Sarah Cronk and Joshua Donohoe—still have housing even though they’re still at risk of homelessness even if they’re currently housed.
August 11, 2025
Scheduled trial date (updated from July 30 date in print edition)
