Homeless advocates sue Fremont over strict anti-camping ordinance
A coalition of homeless activists is suing the city of Fremont over its recently enacted anti-camping ordinance, which critics say criminalizes homelessness and charitable outreach to the unhoused.
The ordinance was approved by a 6-1 vote of the Fremont City Council in February and aims to give the city broad powers to deal with homeless encampments on public and private property.
The new rules specify a jail term of no more than six months and a fine of up to $1,000 for people convicted of camping on sidewalks, streets and parks in Fremont or of aiding, abetting or concealing such behavior.
It also prohibits camping on most private property for longer than 72 hours and the storing of personal belongings on public property.
And while the council seems poised to remove the "aiding and abetting" language from the ordinance at its March 18 meeting—following widespread concerns that it criminalizes helping homeless people—advocates claim such a move would be ineffective because similar language appears in a different section of Fremont's municipal code.
"If the city makes anything unlawful, it also makes aiding and abetting that behavior unlawful," said Anthony Prince, a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, the California Homeless Union.
"They're trying to minimize its significance and it's illusory at best and fraudulent at worst for the city to be falsely misleading the charitable community and supporters of the unhoused into thinking they're okay."
The suit was filed last Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
It alleges the ordinance violates the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Religious Land Use and the Institutionalized Persons Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the California Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
It also likens the way the ordinance treats homeless people to the way runaway slaves were pursued and persecuted in the United States.
"Two hundred years ago, by fleeing bondage, the runaway slaves "stole" themselves from their owners, and became, by definition, criminals," the suit claims. "Today, it is the homeless resident of Fremont who has become the criminal, 'fleeing' from the cold of winter and extreme heat of summer that takes the lives of thousands of the unsheltered every year; 'fleeing' the dangers of the unprotected streets and seeking refuge in a tent, car or under a freeway overpass; fleeing hunger and want by taking the outstretched helping hands of the concerned and the compassionate who, under this unconscionable enactment, have also been pushed into the ranks of the hunted and the criminal."
Fremont Mayor Raj Salwan said Monday the city can't comment on pending litigation but noted it "has agreed to stay enforcement of the Camping Ordinance until the City Council considers an amendment on March 18th."
In addition to pursuing the lawsuit, Prince said his organization and local allies plan to present city officials with a letter demanding they suspend enforcement of the ordinance and meet with advocates and people from the homeless community to talk about the main issues involved, including health and safety goals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' could wreck Utah's groundbreaking AI laws
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget package could derail the state's groundbreaking artificial intelligence laws unless it is changed. The 1,000-page bill that passed the House last month includes a 10-year prohibition on AI regulations. An updated Senate version removed the all-out ban but conditioned $500 million in AI infrastructure grants on states pausing enforcement of AI laws. Behind these provisions is a desire by some lawmakers to prevent a nationwide patchwork of AI regulations that hampers innovation amid competition with China. But Cox, and Utah's top tech policymakers, said the approach taken by Trump's bill interferes with the state's right to react to rapidly evolving technologies. 'Our hope is that the last version of this bill that passes, whatever that looks like, will allow for the smart type of regulation that we're doing in Utah, and prevent the bad kind of regulation that would stop AI from reaching its fullest potential,' Cox said Tuesday during a monthly PBS broadcast. Utah has been recognized around the world for having the 'first and smartest of the AI regulations that have been proposed,' according to Cox. These policies include bills that create a state-run AI policy lab, clarify consumer protection liability for AI and require AI disclosures in industries like finance and mental health. The governor said that multiple members of the U.S. House have told his team that they were not aware of the AI moratorium when they voted on the bill. Members of the White House and Senate have also said that they don't want the 'BBB bill' to eliminate Utah's law, Cox said. 'AI companies actually support what we're doing because they recognize that this is the right way to do AI regulation as opposed to just piecemeal,' Cox said. Cox agreed that 'a hodgepodge' of AI laws around the country would cause the U.S. to 'fall behind and we would lose this global race that is happening right now.' But he said a moratorium on AI policy shouldn't come at the expense of Utah's novel approach which doesn't actually tell AI companies how they can develop their models. Utah Rep. Doug Fiefia, R-Herriman, said the problem goes beyond counterproductive policy. It targets the foundation of states rights that has allowed Utah to lead out on so many issues, according to Fiefia, a freshman lawmaker who previously worked at Google. 'States are laboratories for innovation when it comes to policy, and I believe that the federal government should not overreach on this process and allow it to work,' Fiefia said. 'We will not give over our control because the federal government believes that it's the right thing to do to win this race.' On Tuesday, Utah House legislative leadership, and 62 state senators and representatives, sent a letter authored by Fiefia to Utah's congressional delegation arguing that the moratorium hindered 'Utah's nationally recognized efforts to strike the right balance between innovation and consumer protection.' Not only would the moratorium harm state efforts to legislate guardrails, it would also hurt businesses that are using AI responsibly by allowing their competitors to engage in unethical behavior, according to Fiefia. States have shown they are more nimble than the federal government when they need to adapt to change, Fiefia said. And this is the approach Fiefia believes Utah has demonstrated in opening up legal pathways for innovation while updating the law for the threats posed by AI. 'Just because we want to move fast in this global arms race of AI doesn't mean we can't do so with a seat belt,' Fiefia said. 'I believe that we can both win this AI race, but also doing it in a thoughtful and meaningful way.' The AI moratorium faces procedural hurdles in addition to ideological pushback. Utah Sen. Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, pointed out that reconciliation bills are meant only to amend the annual budget and not make substantive policy shifts. Some senators have alleged that the AI moratorium does not comply with the 'Byrd Rule,' a procedural requirement that prohibits 'nonbudgetary' additions during the budget 'reconciliation' process. Cullimore, who was the sponsor behind most of Utah's AI legislation, was in Washington, D.C., last week, speaking with members of the House Commerce Committee, which oversaw the inclusion of the AI moratorium provisions. The intentions behind the moratorium, Cullimore said, were to prevent states from implementing what are called 'foundational regulations' that restrict the kind of technology AI companies can develop. Utah's laws do not do this, according to Cullimore, who also signed Fiefia's letter, but they would still be sidelined by the 'big beautiful bill' even if the moratorium is replaced by the conditioned federal funding. 'I think the drafting of the moratorium was so broad that it potentially encompassed all of that stuff,' he said. 'So I hope that that we can refine the text a little bit, and then if they want to put those conditions in on foundational regulation, I think that'd be appropriate.'
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court decides to expedite Oregon's lawsuit challenging Trump's tariffs
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – A federal court issued an order on Wednesday to fast-track Oregon's lawsuit challenging tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered to expedite the lawsuit, which was filed in late April in the Court of International Trade in New York. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield welcomed the decision stating, 'We're glad the court recognizes how important this case is by moving it forward quickly.' Investigators believe they spotted Travis Decker hiking in Washington. Here's what to know 'These tariffs are illegal—and they're hurting people. They've driven up costs on everyday goods, making it harder for families and small businesses to make ends meet. One analysis found the added cost is more than $3,800 a month. That's just not sustainable,' Rayfield said. The attorney general noted the order to expedite the lawsuit is only procedural noting, 'This order doesn't address whether the tariffs are legal. So far, every federal judge who's looked at the legality of these tariffs has ruled against them—and we believe the law is on our side.' The lawsuit argues that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, rather, Congress has the power to enact tariffs under Article I of the Constitution. Esquire names Portland bar among the best in the U.S. in 2025 While President Trump's executive orders state the president has the authority to impose tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Attorney General Rayfield argues that law only applies in an emergency with an 'unusual and extraordinary' threat from abroad and does not give the president the power to impose tariffs. The lawsuit is co-led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. Other states joining the suit include Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont. The order to expedite the lawsuit comes after Rayfield celebrated a brief legal victory on May 29 when a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade temporarily blocked tariffs Trump imposed against all U.S. trading partners as well as levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now In a briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the ruling 'judicial overreach' and stressed the need for the Supreme Court to intervene. 'There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process,' she said. 'America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges.' Soon after, however, the Trump administration was granted an appeal to that decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals — upending the lower court's ruling to halt tariffs. KOIN 6 News has reached out to the United States Attorney General's Office. This story will be updated if we receive a response. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth spars with Senate Democrats over Marine deployment to LA anti-ICE riots: 'Not about lethality'
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sparred with Democratic senators during a hearing Wednesday about the Trump administration's deployment of 700 Marines to Los Angeles amid the ongoing anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) riots. In his opening statement before the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Hegseth reiterated how President Donald Trump charged him to focus on restoring "warfighting, lethality, meritocracy, standards and readiness" to the Department of Defense – a point Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., later honed in on during his line of questioning for the secretary. Reed noted that the Trump administration federalized 4,000 California National Guard members and deployed 700 Marines to Los Angeles. Reed said what is happening in Los Angeles comes in addition to the approximately 11,000 military personnel, including active duty soldiers and National Guard members, who have deployed to the southern border in support of U.S. Customs and Border Protection – a figure which Hegseth corrected. The Defense secretary said some 13,000 military personnel have deployed to the southern border and that he has visited those troops several times. Johnson Says Hegseth Possibly Sending Marines To Anti-ice Riots Not Heavy-handed: 'Deterring Effect' "People will say that mobilization hurts readiness. When you talk to them, it actually improves their readiness," Hegseth said. Read On The Fox News App Reed told Hegseth, "Your whole ethic seems to be revolved on the lethality of the military force. How is this operation with Marines and National Guardsmen improving their lethality? "Readiness and training and accountability is all about lethality," Hegseth said. "The more ready you are, the more capable you are, the more accountable you are, the higher your standards are, it all makes you more lethal." "The mission in Los Angeles, as you know well, sir, is not about lethality," the secretary continued. "It's about maintaining law and order on behalf of law enforcement agents who deserve to do their job without being attacked by mobs of people. We are very proud that the National Guard and the Marines are on the streets defending the ICE agents, and they will continue." A Defense official told Fox News that the Marines who arrived in Los Angeles are an infantry unit and are still undergoing training, including in nonlethal weapons and use of force protocols in a domestic setting, at Seal Beach. They have not yet been tapped to respond to street demonstrations as of Wednesday morning. Reed argued that "law and order is a civil function under the Constitution," but Hegseth said that "there is plenty of precedent for the U.S. supporting law enforcement officers." "What your military is doing right now is laying concertina wire, guarding buildings, maintaining vehicles for other services," Reed said. "This is not only, I think, illegal, but also a diminution of the readiness and the focus of the military." California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued the Trump administration for federalizing the National Guard to respond to the riots and for tapping the Marines. A federal judge on Tuesday night declined California's request for an immediate restraining order to block Trump's use of military personnel and scheduled a court hearing to further weigh the legality of the matter for Thursday. Federal Judge Refuses To Block Trump's La National Guard Deployment On Newsom's Timeframe In a separate line of questioning at the Senate hearing Wednesday, Hegseth said Newsom "wants to play politics." Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, had asked another witness, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. John D. Caine, if the United States had been "invaded by a foreign nation" or if "there is a rebellion somewhere in the United States." Caine deferred to the Department of Homeland Security to answer border-related questions in terms of a potential invasion and added on the question of a rebellion that, "there are certainly some frustrated folks out there." "It's quite easy to point out that there has been an invasion of 21 million illegals in our country under the previous administration, so this administration was elected to get a hold of that," Hegseth added. "And when you have ICE officers being attacked with concrete blocks, they should be allowed to do their jobs." Schatz interjected, telling Hegseth he would "really like not to create a viral moment." The senator said he was trying to "understand the scope of the order," which, he says, does not specify a location or which Marines or which Guard members would be mobilized. "Did you just mobilize every guard everywhere and every service member everywhere? I mean, create the framework for that," Schatz said. Hegseth said an initial order federalized 2,000 National Guard troops in California and there was a follow-up order for an additional 2,000 members because the situation there "required more resources in order to support law enforcement." "So part of it is getting ahead of a problem, so that if in other places, if there are other riots in places where law enforcement officers are threatened, we would have the capability to surge National Guard there if necessary," Hegseth said. "And thankfully, in most of those states, you'd have a governor that recognizes the need for it, supports it, and mobilizes it, him or herself. In California, unfortunately, the governor wants to play politics with it." Fox News' Liz Friden contributed to this article source: Hegseth spars with Senate Democrats over Marine deployment to LA anti-ICE riots: 'Not about lethality'
