A federal appeals court Tuesday denied a request from the City of San Francisco to modify an order issued by a judge in December, which blocked city crews from clearing most homeless encampments.
But, as both sides are calling the decision a win, it’s still unclear if the ruling changes anything.
“It’s basically what we had before the appeal was put in place, which is the injunction. So we expected this,” said Jennifer Friedenbach, the executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness in San Francisco.
The original order stems from a lawsuit that the coalition brought against the city.
“The city needs to follow the law,” said Freidenbach. “That’s what our whole lawsuit is about. We’re trying to get them to respect the constitutional rights of homeless people and work with them to get them off the streets, not just citing them, arresting them, taking away their property.”
Freidenbach added, “The order says that somebody, if they are involuntarily homeless, they can not be forced to leave the street. And so what the city has to do is make "a specific offer of shelter" before it may remove somebody from the streets.
David Lane, a professor of law at UCSF, said that the issue centers around exactly who qualifies as involuntarily homeless.
“The Coalition on Homelessness would like to have the order enforced in total and the city, number one, would not like to be subject to the order,” said Lane. “And number two, it would like to have some clarification as to when they can and can not force somebody to leave when they are encamped.”
Get a weekly recap of the latest San Francisco Bay Area housing news. Sign up for NBC Bay Area’s Housing Deconstructed newsletter.
On Wednesday, both sides claimed a measure of victory.
An attorney for the coalition said the organization was pleased that the city’s appeal was denied.
While San Francisco’s city attorney noted that the ruling clarified a key issue that’s prevented the city from clearing camps.
“We’re pleased with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling yesterday,” said City Attorney David Chiu. “The judges agreed with our interpretation of the definition of who existing laws can apply to.”
Though at the moment, it’s not entirely clear what day-to-day difference it makes.
“We are having conversations about that as we speak,” said Chiu. “And we will have more to say on the implications and the impact of this ruling. But, suffice it to say, with the injunction in place before yesterday’s ruling, we had many unhoused residents who would refuse good faith offers of shelter by city workers. It was extremely frustrating.”
