Background
The consolidated appeals arise from litigation challenging Berkeley’s abatement of a long-running homeless encampment near Eighth and Harrison Streets. The Berkeley Homeless Union and individual plaintiffs asserted constitutional, statutory, and other claims against the City and several officials. Related litigation brought by Yesica Prado and other plaintiffs was also among the consolidated matters.
The district court entered summary-judgment and preliminary-injunction rulings requiring the City to undertake certain interactive processes under the Americans with Disabilities Act before abatement and granting limited relief on Fourth Amendment and state-created-danger claims. An August 2026 final judgment extended permanent injunctive relief to BHU members throughout Berkeley. After leptospirosis was detected at the Harrison encampment and the City conducted substantial abatement work in September 2026, the City sought an emergency administrative stay and a stay pending appeal.
The Court’s Holding
In a per curiam order, the Ninth Circuit granted the City’s motion in part. It stayed the district court’s orders to the extent they prevented Berkeley from clearing the Harrison encampment or removing vehicles that remained there. The court concluded that the leptospirosis risk warranted emergency relief, BHU had not defended the likelihood-of-success issue in its opposition, relocation outside the Harrison corridor and interim-housing assistance limited the likely injury to remaining residents, and the public interest favored reducing the risk of disease.
The court otherwise denied the stay without prejudice. The City had not shown irreparable harm from requirements governing the handling and storage of personal property, the citywide scope of the final injunction, or the ADA interactive process for relocating seven disabled BHU members. The record did not establish that the district court had required camping in “No Lodging” areas, and the transcript of the hearing on final judgment showed that the City repeatedly agreed to language making the relief applicable to BHU members throughout Berkeley. The court denied the requested administrative stay as moot and allowed the City to renew its request if circumstances changed.
Judge Bumatay concurred in staying restrictions that impeded the Harrison abatement but dissented from the partial denial. He would have stayed the district court’s orders in full, reasoning that BHU likely lacked associational standing, its claims were unlikely to succeed, and the injunctions irreparably interfered with Berkeley’s public-health response and citywide homelessness policy.
Key Takeaways
- Berkeley may clear the Harrison encampment and remove remaining vehicles despite the district court’s injunctions.
- The City did not establish irreparable harm sufficient to stay the remaining property-handling, citywide, and ADA-related requirements on the existing record.
- The denial was without prejudice, leaving the City free to seek renewed interim relief if circumstances change and it supplies a sufficient record.
Why It Matters
The order permits immediate municipal action against a documented public-health threat while leaving most of the district court’s protections in place during the appeal. It also underscores that a stay applicant must establish concrete irreparable harm for each category of relief it seeks to suspend.
The divided order previews significant merits disputes over associational standing, the ADA, the Fourth Amendment, state-created danger, and the permissible scope of injunctions governing encampment abatements. Those questions remained unresolved because the court was deciding only emergency interim relief.