Gavin Newsom and House Republicans find common cause on homelessness

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and GOP Rep. Darrell Issa are on the same side of a political fight.

All it took to bring them together was a homelessness crisis.

On Monday the Supreme Court is taking up a case with monumental consequences for how cities in California and other states address encampments. At issue is whether local governments can remove encampments if there isn’t more permanent shelter available for homeless people.

Tents pitched in parks, under freeways and across sidewalks have become painfully ubiquitous symbols of a problem that has consumed California politics for years. A lack of progress has fanned public frustration.

Californians across parties and levels of government — from the Newsom administration to Democratic mayors to House Republicans likeIssa — have implored the Supreme Court to consider reversing the ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson that prohibits dismantling encampments without moving people indoors.

Specifically, they want the high court’s conservative majority to overturn that Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling — an odd bedfellows situation as the Ninth Circuit is usually attacked by Republicans for its liberal rulings. The 2020 Grants decision invalidated an Oregon city’s anti-camping ordinances and prevented local officials from citing homeless people for public camping.

In an amicus brief filed with the court, Newsom’s administration warned that cities “are trapped” in a no-win situation because they are at risk of being sued if they clear encampments, while at the same time they can be sued if they don’t immediately address the health and public-safety risks posed by street camping.

Newsom has said while he opposes penalties for people sleeping outside, the Grants Pass ruling has been interpreted so widely that it broadly prevents cities from doing anything. Issa submitted his own amicus brief alongside other House Republicans like California’s Kevin Kiley and Tom McClintock. They criticize the Ninth Circuit for similar reasons as Newsom, saying the court “has effectively usurped the policymaking authority of local municipalities.”

Perhaps no case study has riled Newsom as much as that of San Francisco, which has faced a monthslong restriction on clearing encampments. A judicial magistrate issued a partial injunction in late 2022 that prevented the city from clearing tents unless it offered immediate shelter.

“I hope this goes to the Supreme Court, and that’s a hell of a statement for a progressive Democrat,” Newsom told POLITICO last fall.

Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed sharply criticized Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu over the injunction. The mayor hammered Ryu for trying to “micromanage” the response to a crisis in a city where she doesn’t live. Ryu has, in turn, said the city is falling short “by thousands of beds” to provide adequate shelter.

The San Francisco case is effectively on pause pending the Supreme Court’s ruling. But it shows the uncomfortable politics for Democrats like Newsom and Breed — who find themselves praying that conservative Supreme Court justices will hand them a victory.

Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO’s California Playbook newsletter.