Huntington Beach may ask U.S. Supreme Court to hear housing case after appeals court declines another look
Huntington Beach might appeal its fight over state housing mandates all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, after a federal appellate court declined another hearing the city's lawsuit on Monday.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied an en banc review of City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom, where all judges from the full circuit court would hear it.
Huntington Beach City Atty. Mike Vigliotta said in a statement Tuesday that he would ask the City Council to approve filing a petition to the Supreme Court, the last option for the case to continue. The all-MAGA City Council has taken a firm stance against the state getting involved in the charter city's business, particularly in the area of zoning for more housing.
'A city's right to sue the state in federal court is an issue that presents a split among federal circuit courts across the nation,' Vigliotta said. 'These are the kinds of cases the Supreme Court will sometimes hear to resolve the split among federal circuit courts. We remain determined to challenge Sacramento's unconstitutional stronghold on cities. We will not be deterred or intimidated and will continue to fight for Huntington Beach.'
Huntington Beach has continued to fight state Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirements to zone for 13,368 dwelling units in the current cycle. The city filed a federal lawsuit against the state of California in March 2023, arguing that the requirements violate the charter city's right to zone property.
The courts have largely not agreed. The state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was granted by a U.S. district court judge in November 2023.
Michael Gates, who recently left his job as Huntington Beach city attorney, argued the case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024, but a three-judge panel ruled that the city did not have standing to sue in federal court.
Additionally, that panel stated in its ruling that 'no matter how California categorizes charter cities, they remain subordinate political bodies, not sovereign entities.'
Now, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied taking another look at the case with a larger group of judges.
'We are pleased that Huntington Beach's latest attempt to exempt itself from our state's housing laws has failed,' California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'All along, Governor Newsom and I have asserted that the city's federal lawsuit is meritless and a waste of the public's money. Like every other city in California, Huntington Beach has a legal obligation to build its fair share of housing. We will be closely monitoring what the city decides to do next.'
In a state lawsuit against Huntington Beach, a San Diego Superior Court judge ordered last July that the city must pass a compliant housing element within a year. That case is also on appeal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
22 minutes ago
- Politico
Supreme Court limits outside access to DOGE records
The Supreme Court has reined in a lower-court order that allowed a watchdog group wide-ranging access to records of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency. The high court's majority said a judge's directive allowing Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to examine DOGE's recommendations for cost savings at executive branch agencies was 'not appropriately tailored.' In a two-page order Friday, the Supreme Court said such access was not a proper way to resolve an ongoing dispute about whether DOGE is a federal agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act or operates as a presidential advisory body that does not have to share its records with the public. 'Separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications,' the court's majority wrote. All three of the court's liberal justices indicated they disagreed with the decision, but none provided an explanation of her views.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
DOGE can access sensitive Social Security records, Supreme Court rules
The Department of Government Efficiency can have unimpeded access to sensitive Social Security records for millions of people, the Supreme Court ruled Friday. The justices granted the Trump administration's emergency request to lift a lower-court order that had blocked a DOGE team assigned to the Social Security Administration from viewing or obtaining personal information in the agency's systems. The court's majority provided no detailed explanation for its ruling, but in a three-paragraph unsigned order, the majority wrote: 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.' The three liberal justices dissented. In a 10-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the decision creates 'grave privacy risks for millions of Americans.' Trump administration lawyers claimed the DOGE team members needed unfettered access to Social Security's data in order to detect and halt fraudulent payments, but a federal judge in Maryland ruled that the breadth of DOGE's access violated federal law and put the data at risk of intentional or unintentional disclosure. The legal fight over DOGE's access to Social Security data is one of several that broke out in the early weeks of Trump's second term as the budget-slashing team overseen by Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk fanned out across the federal government. In response to lawsuits, federal judges also limited DOGE access to sensitive databases at the Treasury and Education departments, as well as the Office of Personnel Management. Some of the restrictions have been eased over time as the Trump administration convinced the judges that adequate safeguards were in place to avoid disclosure of personal information. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, a Baltimore-based Obama appointee, blocked DOGE's access to Social Security's databases, which include tax and wage reports as well as retirement and disability payments. In her March ruling, she concluded that the access granted to the cost-cutting team violated the Privacy Act because agency officials did not show that it was necessary to include identifying information in order to carry out the search for fraudulent payments. Justice Department lawyers defending the move offered only 'cursory, circular statements' to justify the DOGE team's access, the judge said. However, Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court that the limits Hollander imposed interfered with President Donald Trump's ability to carry out his 'critically important' agenda to eliminate wasteful spending and update archaic systems at federal agencies. 'Employees charged with modernizing government information systems and routing [sic] out fraud, waste, and abuse in data systems plainly need access to those systems,' Sauer wrote. 'District courts should not be able to wield the Privacy Act to substitute their own view of the government's 'needs' for that of the President and agency heads.' In her dissent Friday, Jackson said the government had presented 'next to nothing' to explain what harm the DOGE operation or the Social Security Administration would suffer if the limits the lower-court ordered remained in place. The Biden-appointed justice also contended that her conservative colleagues were bending the court's usual standards to allow the Trump administration to pursue its favored course of action. 'It seems as if the Court has truly lost its moorings,' Jackson wrote, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 'The Court is … unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration.' Justice Elena Kagan also dissented from the court's order, but did not provide any explanation of her views. Among the projects DOGE staffers were working on at Social Security was one targeting improper payments to dead people. Trump has frequently falsely claimed that large numbers of deceased people receive Social Security checks, including earlier this year during a high-profile address in March to a joint session of Congress. 'One person is listed at 360 years of age … More than 100 years older than our country,' Trump said. 'But we're going to find out where that money is going, and it's not going to be pretty.' Musk also made staggering claims, suggesting in a social media post that 20 million people over 100 years of age were receiving Social Security. However, computer experts said most of the outlandishly implausible ages were the product of a default setting in the 60-year-old COBOL programming language, which interprets incomplete or missing age data as the system's oldest possible date in 1875. Musk's term as a special government employee ended last week with Trump hosting an Oval Office send-off for the tech entrepreneur. While the pair were upbeat and complimentary there, Musk's escalating attacks on Trump's budget bill currently before Congress led to a spectacular flame-out of the relationship in recent days, with Trump threatening to cut government contracts to Musk's businesses and Musk accusing Trump of delaying the release of FBI records that could be embarrassing to him.
Washington Post
38 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court lets DOGE access Social Security data of millions of Americans
A divided Supreme Court on Friday sided with the Trump administration for now in a pair of cases involving the U.S. DOGE Service, whose efforts to slash government agencies and obtain data about Americans have been mostly shrouded from public view. The justices cleared the way in the first case for DOGE representatives to access sensitive data and internal systems at the Social Security Administration while litigation on the matter continues.
