Background
The litigation arose from Berkeley’s efforts to abate a long-running homeless encampment near Eighth and Harrison Streets. Berkeley Homeless Union and individual plaintiffs challenged the City’s actions under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fourth Amendment, and the state-created-danger doctrine. The district court entered orders requiring specified procedures and accommodations before certain abatement, property-removal, and enforcement actions, and ultimately entered a permanent injunction applying to BHU members throughout Berkeley.
After leptospirosis was detected at the encampment, the City began a substantial cleanup in September 2026. The City then sought an emergency stay pending appeal, arguing that the district court’s orders prevented complete abatement, restricted removal of vehicles and personal property, and improperly constrained enforcement citywide. The record indicated that most of the encampment had been cleared, although some BHU members remained.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit granted a stay to the extent the district court’s orders prevented Berkeley from clearing the Harrison Encampment or removing vehicles from it. The court found sufficient irreparable harm in the public-health risk posed by leptospirosis. It also concluded that the other stay factors favored the City because BHU did not defend the likelihood-of-success issue in its opposition, the City had offered displaced residents locations outside the encampment and connections to interim housing, and the public interest favored reducing the risk of disease.
The court otherwise denied the requested stay without prejudice. Berkeley had not shown irreparable injury from requirements governing personal-property storage, disability-related relocation procedures, or the injunction’s broader geographic scope. The existing record also did not establish that the district court required camping in designated “No Lodging” areas. The court noted that Berkeley had agreed during a hearing to language supporting citywide relief and directed the City to raise any misunderstanding about the final judgment first with the district court. The request for an administrative stay was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Berkeley may clear the Harrison Encampment and remove any remaining vehicles despite the district court’s orders.
- A demonstrated public-health threat supplied the irreparable harm necessary for a partial stay pending appeal.
- The court declined, on the fragmented record before it, to stay the district court’s property-handling, ADA-process, and citywide provisions.
- The denial was without prejudice, allowing Berkeley to renew its request if circumstances or the evidentiary record change.
Why It Matters
The order permits Berkeley to complete the challenged encampment clearance while leaving most of the district court’s protections in place during the appeal. It illustrates that emergency public-health concerns can justify immediate relief without resolving the underlying constitutional and statutory claims.
Judge Bumatay concurred in staying restrictions on the Harrison abatement but dissented from the partial denial. He would have stayed the district court’s orders in full, concluding that BHU likely lacked associational standing, its claims were unlikely to succeed, and the injunction improperly interfered with Berkeley’s citywide homelessness policy.