Unhoused people in the city of Sacramento were supposed to be safe from being booted out of the shade until at least mid-August after a federal court temporarily banned the clearing of encampments amid the heat wave.
But at least twice in the last week, the city has violated that court order. On Friday and Monday, when temperatures rose into the triple digits, city-contracted security cleared homeless camps out of the shaded areas surrounding City Hall, a city spokesperson confirmed.
The violations have added weight to an ongoing civil rights lawsuit brought last year by the Sacramento Homeless Union, which alleges the city and county have endangered unhoused people during extreme heat conditions and violated their right to “bodily integrity” by pushing them into more dangerous circumstances.
The clearings come as a public fight over how best to handle homelessness rapidly escalates in the capital city. Sacramento Dist. Atty. Thien Ho on Monday lambasted city officials over their handling of homelessness, saying the city is at a “breaking point.” He sent a 30-day notice to the mayor with a list of demands, including a citywide ban on daytime camping.
Such a request is at odds with the current court order, which city spokesperson Tim Swanson said was violated over the last week as a result of ineffective communication with Allied Universal Security. He called the clearing of encampments amid the heat “unintentional oversights.”
“The city respects the order issued by the federal court and has been working diligently to follow all aspects of it,” Swanson wrote. “At this time, the situation involving City Hall has been addressed and remedied, with the city proactively informing the Sacramento Homeless Union Monday morning about the mistaken enforcement.”
Anthony Prince, the lead attorney representing the union, said that wasn’t quite the case. Despite ongoing conversations with the city, the Sacramento Homeless Union is leaning toward filing a new motion against the city. That motion would require Sacramento to prove why it should not be held in contempt for the violation.
Prince said he was already aware of the sweep Friday and claimed a third had occurred Tuesday morning, which The Times was not able to immediately confirm.
“I advised them to make certain it didn’t happen on Monday, and sure enough it did. And then now we find out also that they did it [Tuesday] morning,” he said. “Unfortunately, our informal efforts to get the city to abide by this order have been unavailing.”
It isn’t the first time a temporary injunction barring encampment sweeps during periods of extreme heat has been issued to the city. It happened twice last summer — at the end of July and again at the start of September.
“And now here we are, a year later,” Prince said. “The city actually approached us in June and said, ‘What will it take for you guys to dismiss your lawsuit?’ I said, ‘Well, how about putting into place the protections that we had to go to court to get last summer and you refused to do?'”
The most recent complaint, penned by Prince, argues that circumstances are “even more egregious” this summer due to ramped-up restrictions on encampments that have been passed. The motion points to the ordinance that banned camping on sidewalks, as well as the expansion of areas designated as ” critical infrastructure ” where homeless encampments are prohibited — including within 500 feet of schools.
The complaint also details a sweep in mid-July when officials, citing the sidewalk ordinance, cleared about 30 people who had been sheltering under trees. The city offered to relocate the campers to another encampment at Miller Park, but it was already crowded, with 60 tents on asphalt under direct sunlight, the complaint states.
Excessive heat is defined by the city as temperatures above 90 degrees. The complaint included forecasts showing that August was expected to have 21 days when temperatures would reach 90 degrees or higher.
Advocates estimate that unhoused people make up about half of the 1,500 heat deaths suffered each year. According to the latest estimate, about 9,300 unhoused people live in Sacramento County — a 67% increase from 2019. As the population has increased, so too have daily temperature records.
District Judge Troy Nunley granted the motion for the temporary restraining order last week, concluding that the health and welfare of unhoused individuals “far outweighed” the city’s interest in clearing encampments during extreme heat. The restraining order was only issued to the city, although the county was included in the complaint.
Swanson said the city “respects the order,” but is seeking clarity on why the county was not included in the injunction “despite employing similar protocols as the city.” The county declined to comment on “pending litigation.”
All parties involved in the temporary restraining order were ordered to file a joint statement Wednesday on ways the injunction could be altered to best serve all interests. After that, the court will determine whether to extend, modify or terminate the order.
