GRANTS PASS, Oregon — A pickleball game in this leafy Oregon community was suddenly interrupted one rainy weekend morning by the arrival of an ambulance. Paramedics rushed through the park toward a tent, one of dozens illegally erected by the town’s hundreds of homeless people, then play resumed as though nothing had happened.

Myles Baida plays pickleball as emergency responders put a homeless person in an ambulance March 23 in Grants Pass, Ore. Relatives had called police and requested a welfare check. 

Jenny Kane, Associated Press

Mere feet away, volunteers helped dismantle tents to move an 80-year-old man and a woman blind in one eye, who risked being fined for staying too long. In the distance, a group of boys climbed on a jungle gym.

The scenes were emblematic of the crisis gripping the small, Oregon mountain town of Grants Pass, where a fierce fight over park space has become a battleground for a much larger, national debate on homelessness that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

A volunteer holds on to a wheelchair as Max Hartfelt is helped into his tent after being relocated from one park to another March 23 in Grants Pass, Ore. The rural community has become the unlikely face of the nation’s homelessness crisis as its case over anti-camping laws goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jenny Kane, Associated Press

The town’s case, set to be heard April 22, has broad implications for how not only Grants Pass, but communities nationwide address homelessness, including whether they can fine or jail people for camping in public. It has made the town of 40,000 the unlikely face of the nation’s homelessness crisis, and further fueled the debate over how to deal with it.

People are also reading…

Grants Pass Mayor Sara Bristol visits Tussing Park on March 22 in Grants Pass, Ore. 

Jenny Kane, Associated Press

“I certainly wish this wasn’t what my town was known for,” Mayor Sara Bristol told The Associated Press last month. “It’s not the reason why I became mayor. And yet it has dominated every single thing that I’ve done for the last 3 ½ years.”

Officials across the political spectrum — from Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in California, which has nearly 30% of the nation’s homeless population, to a group of 22 conservative-led states — have filed briefs in the case, saying lower court rulings have hamstrung their ability to deal with encampments.

Like many Western communities, Grants Pass has struggled for years with a burgeoning homeless population. A decade ago, City Council members discussed how to make it “uncomfortable enough … in our city so they will want to move on down the road.” From 2013 to 2018, the city said it issued 500 citations for camping or sleeping in public, including in vehicles, with fines that could reach hundreds of dollars.

A vehicle at left drives down Rogue River Highway as light shines on the area  March 23 in Grants Pass, Ore. 

Jenny Kane, Associated Press

But a 2018 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals changed the calculus. The court, whose jurisdiction includes nine Western states, held that while communities are allowed to prohibit tents in public spaces, it violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment to give people criminal citations for sleeping outside when they had no place else to go.

Four years later, in a case challenging restrictions in Grants Pass, the court expanded that ruling, holding that civil citations also can be unconstitutional.

Civil rights groups and attorneys for the homeless residents who challenged the restrictions in 2018 insist people shouldn’t be punished for lacking housing. Officials throughout the West have overstated the impact of the court decisions to distract from their own failings, they argued.

“For years, political leaders have chosen to tolerate encampments as an alternative to meaningfully addressing the western region’s severe housing shortage,” the attorneys wrote. “It is easier to blame the courts than to take responsibility for finding a solution.”

In Grants Pass, the town’s parks, many lining the picturesque Rogue River, are at the heart of the debate. Cherished for their open spaces, picnic tables, playgrounds and sports fields, they host everything from annual boat-racing festivals and vintage car shows to Easter egg hunts and summer concerts.

Brian Wright, center, prays during bible study at Gospel Rescue Mission on March 21 in Grants Pass, Ore. 

Jenny Kane, Associated Press

They’re also the sites of encampments blighted by illegal drug use and crime, including a shooting at a park last year that left one person dead. Tents cluster along riverbanks, next to tennis courts and jungle gyms, with tarps shielding belongings from the rain. When the sun comes out, clothes and blankets are strung across tree branches to dry. Used needles litter the ground.

Grants Pass has one overnight shelter for adults, the Gospel Rescue Mission. It has 138 beds, but rules including attendance at daily Christian services, no alcohol, drugs or smoking and no pets mean many won’t stay there.

Cassy Leach, a nurse, leads a volunteer group providing food, medical care and other basic goods to the town’s hundreds of homeless people. They help relocate their tents to comply with city rules.

Cassy Leach, a nurse who leads a group of volunteers who provide food, medical care and other basic goods to the hundreds of homeless people living in the parks, talks to Kimberly Marie, who is homeless and camping in Fruitdale Park on March 21 in Grants Pass, Ore. 

Jenny Kane, Associated Press

At one park last month, she checked on a man who burned his leg after falling on a torch lighter during a fentanyl overdose and brought him naloxone, the opioid overdose reversal medication. In another, she distributed cans of beans, peas and Chef Boyardee mini ravioli from a pickup truck.

“Love, hope, community and a safety net is really as important as a shower and water,” Leach said.

Dre Buetow, 48, from northern California, has been living in his car for three years after a bone cancer diagnosis and $450,000 in medical bills. The illness and treatment kept him from returning to his old tree-trimming job, he said.

Laura Gutowski’s husband died from a pulmonary embolism and she suddenly found herself, in her 50s, with no income. They didn’t have life insurance or savings and, within a month, she was sleeping outside.

“I used to love camping,” she said through tears. “And now I can’t stand it anymore.”

But some residents want to limit aid because of the trash left behind after encampment moves or food handouts. The City Council proposed requiring outreach groups to register with the city. The mayor vetoed it, laying bare the discord gripping Grants Pass.

Before the council attempted, unsuccessfully, to override the veto last month, a self-proclaimed “park watch” group rallied outside City Hall with signs reading, “Parks are for kids.” 

The group regularly posts images of trash, tents and homeless people on social media. On Sundays, they set up camp chairs in what they say is a bid to reclaim park space.

Brock Spurgeon says he used to take his grandkids to parks that were so full it was hard to find an available picnic table. Now, open drug use and discarded needles have scared families away, he said.

“That was taken away from us when the campers started using the parks,” he said.

Homeless encampment sweeps spike in cities across US as housing crisis grows

Michael Johnson gathers possessions to take before a homeless encampment was cleaned up in San Francisco on Aug. 29, 2023. Cities across the U.S. are struggling with and cracking down on tent encampments as the number of homeless people grows, largely due to a lack of affordable housing. Homeless people and their advocates say sweeps are cruel and costly, and there aren’t enough homes or beds for everyone.  

Jeff Chiu, Associated Press

Roxanne Simonson, 60, removes her long-sleeve shirt  July 27 after being told by Rapid Response Bio Clean that she has 72 hours to vacant her illegal campsite in Portland, Ore. Simonson has been homeless for two years. 

Craig Mitchelldyer

Will Taylor, 32, cleans up the campsite of a friend July 27 before Rapid Response Bio Clean removes the belongings during a sweep in Portland, Ore. Taylor says that he has had to move three times since becoming homeless. Tent encampments have long been a fixture of West Coast cities, but are now spreading visibly across the U.S. The federal count of homeless people reached 580,000 last year, driven by lack of affordable housing and a pandemic that economically wrecked households. 

Craig Mitchelldyer, Associated Press

Prohibited items that have been collected by Rapid Response Bio Clean while cleaning homeless camps sit on a table in the company warehouse in Portland, Ore., on July 27, 2023. Weapons, car parts and drug paraphernalia are not allowed to be returned to people whose items have been confiscated during a sweep.  

Craig Mitchelldyerr, Associated Press

A San Francisco Police Department vehicle drives through a homeless encampment being cleaned up in San Francisco on Aug. 29, 2023. Records obtained by The Associated Press show attempts to clear encampments increased in cities from Los Angeles to New York as public pressure grew to address what are dangerous and unsanitary living conditions. But despite tens of millions of dollars spent in recent years, there appears to be little reduction in the number of tents propped up on sidewalks, in parks and by freeway off-ramps.

Jeff Chiur, Associated Press

Members of the San Francisco Homeless Outreach Team’s Encampment Resolution Team walk toward an encampment in San Francisco Aug. 29, 2023. 

Jeff Chiu, Associated Press

Two small stones that say “hope” and “peace” respectively and two flowers lay inside a circle of rocks on the ground in Portland, Ore., on Oct. 17, 2023. The rock circle is next to the site of a former homeless encampment that was cleared several times over the course of the year. With homelessness on the rise in the U.S. and a lack of affordable housing, cities and states are cracking down on mushrooming tent encampments.  

Claire Rushr, Associated Press

Roughly 30 large boulders occupy the narrow strip of land between a sidewalk and a parking lot wall in Portland, Ore., on Oct. 17, 2023. The boulders were installed sometime after late July at the site of a former homeless encampment to prevent tents from being set back up. The encampment was cleared several times over the course of the year.  

Claire Rushr, Associated Press

San Francisco Public Works crew load a truck while cleaning items from a homeless encampment in San Francisco Aug. 29, 2023. Cities across the U.S. are struggling with and cracking down on tent encampments as the number of homeless people grows, largely due to a lack of affordable housing. Homeless people and their advocates say sweeps are cruel and costly, and there aren’t enough homes or beds for everyone. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Jeff Chiu, Associated Press

A woman gathers possessions to take before a homeless encampment was cleaned up in San Francisco on Aug. 29, 2023. Cities across the U.S. are struggling with and cracking down on tent encampments as the number of homeless people grows, largely due to a lack of affordable housing. Homeless people and their advocates say sweeps are cruel and costly, and there aren’t enough homes or beds for everyone.  

Jeff Chiu, Associated Press

A woman gathers possessions to take before a homeless encampment was cleaned up in San Francisco, Aug. 29, 2023.  

Jeff Chiur, Associated Press

Members of the San Francisco Homeless Outreach Team’s Encampment Resolution Team speak with people at an encampment in San Francisco Aug. 29, 2023.  

Jeff Chiur, Associated Press

A San Francisco Public Works crew cleans items from a homeless encampment in San Francisco Aug. 29, 2023. 

Jeff Chiur, Associated Press

Maurice Palmer waits with his possessions as a homeless encampment is cleaned up in San Francisco Aug. 29, 2023.  

Jeff Chiur, Associated Press

Francis Zamora, of Department of Emergency Management, walks past a puddle near a homeless encampment being cleaned up in San Francisco Aug. 29, 2023.  

Jeff Chiur, Associated Press

A man pushes items while a homeless encampment is being cleaned up in San Francisco Aug. 29, 2023.  

Jeff Chiur, Associated Press

Roughly 30 large boulders occupy the narrow strip of land between a sidewalk and a parking lot wall in Portland, Ore., on Oct. 17, 2023. The boulders were installed sometime after late July at the site of a former homeless encampment to prevent tents from being set back up. The encampment was cleared several times over the course of the year. Cities across the U.S. are struggling with and cracking down on tent encampments as the number of homeless people grows, largely due to a lack of affordable housing. Homeless people and their advocates say sweeps are cruel and costly, and there aren’t enough homes or beds for everyone.  

Claire Rushr, Associated Press

Amber Nastasia from Rapid Response Bio Clean cleans a homeless camp July 27 in Portland, Ore. 

Craig Mitchelldyer, Associated Press

Will Taylor, 32, cleans up the campsite of a friend July 27 before Rapid Response Bio Clean removes the belongings during a sweep in Portland, Ore.

Craig Mitchelldyer, Associated Press

Will Taylor, 32, cleans up the campsite of a friend before Rapid Response Bio Clean removes the belongings during a sweep in Portland, Ore., July 27, 2023. T 

Craig Mitchelldyerr, Associated Press

Amber Nastasia from Rapid Response Bio Clean cleans a homeless camp in Portland, Ore., on July 27, 2023.  

Craig Mitchelldyerr, Associated Press

Amber Nastasia, left, and Jacob Miller from Rapid Response Bio Clean clean a homeless camp in Portland, Ore., Thursday, July 27, 2023.  

Craig Mitchelldyerr, Associated Press

Be the first to know

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

The post Supreme Court docket to resolve Oregon homelessness case appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

As an increasing number of landlords face foreclosure or sell off their properties at a steep discount, the U.S. Supreme Court has dashed their hopes of finding relief from rent regulation.

The court on Monday declined to hear landlord groups’ challenge to New York’s rent stabilization law. 

The Rent Stabilization Association, the Community Housing Improvement Program and a few individual landlords filed a petition in May, asking the court to consider arguments that the state’s rent stabilization represents an unlawful taking of property without just compensation. 

The decision thwarts the hopes of struggling landlords and means any relief is likely up to state lawmakers. That is an iffy proposition at best.

The legal petition claimed that landlords are forced to provide “public assistance” to tenants through low rents, lease renewals and succession rights. The city’s Rent Guidelines Board, which determines annual rent increases for stabilized apartments, considers tenants’ ability to pay rent, which has led to “a widening gap between owner costs and regulated rents,” the petition states. 

The groups claim that the rent law fails to actually address the state’s housing crisis while placing “the burden of rectifying a societal problem on a select minority of property owners.” New York City has about 900,000 rent-stabilized units and its suburbs have perhaps 100,000 more.

Extensive changes to the state’s rent law in 2019 further restricted how and when landlords can increase rent on stabilized apartments and when apartments can be taken back by the owner.

Landlords have blamed those changes for their inability to renovate apartments needing extensive repairs, resulting in tens of thousands of units being removed from the market and building revenue failing to keep up with expenses.

Defenders of the law say landlords purchased their buildings knowing they were subject to further regulation by lawmakers, and if the 2019 reform cost them money, that does not make it unconstitutional.

Foreclosure filings are on the rise as property owners struggle to pay off their debt, and high interest rates spell trouble for those with impending loan maturities. 

The Supreme Court challenge was a long shot, given the court’s history of declining rent control cases and the tiny fraction of cases that are heard by the high court each year.  

Even the court’s conservative majority was not enough to push the case forward. Four votes among the nine justices were needed to hear the case. 

“While we were hopeful a broad facial challenge would have delivered the most relief to the most owners as quickly as possible, we remain convinced that the law is irrational and vulnerable to more specific challenges,” Jay Martin, CHIP’s executive director, said in a statement. “One way or another this law must go down. Its current form is destroying New York’s housing.”

In a joint statement, CHIP and RSA called the decision “a signal to bring more targeted challenges to specific provisions of the law illustrating direct impacts on housing providers.”

The landlords’ arguments relied on a 2021 decision by the high court in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. In that case, the court found a California law unconstitutional because it required employers to allow union organizers onto their property for up to three hours.

The groups filed their lawsuit in July 2019, intent on eventually bringing their claims before the Supreme Court. Lower courts rejected their arguments.

Two other similar petitions challenging the state’s rent law could still be picked up by the high court, though the odds are against them as well. The Legal Aid Society, which opposed the landlord groups’ petition, said it was hopeful that the other two cases will meet a similar fate.

“We welcome this decision, one rooted in the law and long-standing legal precedent, from the Supreme Court denying CHIP’s meritless and frivolous lawsuit challenging our city’s rent stabilization laws,” the group said in a statement.

Other states were watching this case closely, with some landlords hoping a Supreme Court ruling would require changes to rent control beyond New York. 

In an amicus curiae brief in support of the landlord groups, the California Business Roundtable cited California’s 2019 cap on rent increases, pointing to Los Angeles and San Francisco as “some of the most burdensome rent-control regimes in the country.”

“Some of California’s largest cities … contain many of the same troubling features that petitioners challenge here — e.g., substantial restraints on a property owner’s ability to remove tenants, to reclaim units for personal use, to withdraw units from the market, and to charge fair-market rates,” the brief states. 

Read more

The post Supreme Court docket Rejects NY Lease Legislation Problem appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday significantly weakened a landmark water pollution law by ruling that an Idaho couple’s property does not include wetlands that are subject to federal oversight by law.

The ruling, in which all judges agreed on the outcome but differed on the legal reasoning, concluded that Mike and Chantell Sackett’s land does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act of 1972 and therefore they do not qualify for federal approval need to build property on it.

The decision ends a year-long battle between the Sacketts and the federal government and is a victory for conservative groups and business interests opposed to full application of the Water Pollution Act.

President Joe Biden criticized the decision, saying it “turns on its head the legal framework that has protected American waters for decades.” The ruling “contradicts the science that affirms the critical role of wetlands in protecting our nation’s streams, rivers and lakes from chemicals and pollutants,” he said in a statement.

Damien Schiff, the Sacketts’ attorney, said the decision “resets the scope of the Clean Water Act to its original and reasonable limits.” The decision represents a “profound victory for property rights and the constitutional separation of powers,” he added.

The ruling is another example of the court’s conservative judges pushing ahead with a ruling that limits the sweeping powers of federal agencies, a common theme in recent years.

Coming to its broader legal conclusion, the court ruled 5-4 in an opinion by conservative Justice Samuel Alito that the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction extended only to wetlands that were “indistinguishable” from larger bodies of water because they would have a “continuous surface” connection.”

The wetlands on the Sacketts’ property are “distinguishable from any potentially covered body of water,” he wrote.

The ruling will ease some burdens on landowners, including big business interests, Alito said, as the law “can be sweeping to criminalize everyday activities like earth moving.”

The impact will be felt across the country, as environmental groups say millions of acres of wetlands will no longer fall under federal jurisdiction. Unless states tighten their own environmental laws, property owners will have considerable freedom to fill in wetlands without having to go through the previously required state permitting process.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court’s three Liberal Justices in rejecting the new majority test.

Recommended

“By limiting the scope of the Wetlands Act to only contiguous wetlands, the Court’s new review means that some long-regulated contiguous wetlands are no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant implications for water quality and flood control across the country United States will have,” he wrote.

The court’s new approach could jeopardize both the ability to regulate the Mississippi levee system and effectively monitor the Chesapeake Bay, Kavanaugh said. Levees separating wetlands from the Mississippi mean those wetlands could be outside of federal oversight and wetlands vital to the Chesapeake Bay could be filled in without state permits, he said.

In a separate statement, Liberal Justice Elena Kagan targeted the majority to rewrite a law passed by Congress. She compared the ruling to the court’s decision last year to limit the scope of the Clean Air Act as part of efforts to tackle climate change.

“The vice is the same in both cases: the appointment of the court as the national decision-maker in environmental policy,” she said.

In this case, the Sacketts returned to the Supreme Court for the second time after the judges ruled in their favor in a previous case in 2012. Both cases involve the same underlying dispute: their desire to build a property on their property in Priest Lake, Idaho, portions of which have been designated a protected wetland area by the EPA, meaning the land is subject to federal jurisdiction and A permit is required to build on it.

Chantell and Mike Sackett.Lawrence Hurley/E&E News

The litigation focused on whether the Sacketts could challenge an EPA compliance order in court after they filled the affected area with gravel and sand without a permit. The dispute, which began in 2007, continued over whether the land was even a wetland.

The Sacketts returned to the Supreme Court after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, ruled in favor of the federal government in August 2021 that the area was in fact a wetland.

The law defining a wetland – which is crucial for property developers and other business interests – has long been unclear and was not resolved when the Supreme Court ruled a previous case on the issue. In 2006, four judges said the Clean Water Act covers wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to a waterway, but there was no clear majority. Judge Anthony Kennedy, who cast the fifth vote in that 5-4 ruling, presented his own test, saying the statute provides jurisdiction over wetlands with a “significant connection” to a waterway.

Successive presidential administrations have attempted to bring clarity to the law, with Democrats generally favoring greater federal power and Republicans, supported by business interests, saying the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction should be limited.

In Thursday’s ruling, the court rejected the significance nexus test and appeared to adopt the approach of the four-judge block in the 2006 case.

Sam Sankar, a lawyer for environmental group Earthjustice, said up to 90 million hectares of formerly protected wetlands could now be at risk.

Because liberal-leaning states are likely to enact new laws to protect wetlands, “the impacts on the ground will be most severe in states that are most polluter-friendly and least concerned about environmental protection,” he added.

While environmental activists were depressed, the business community rejoiced at a decision that will be a boon to companies across multiple industries, including energy and construction.

“The Supreme Court has given long-overdue relief to businesses and landowners across our country,” said Marty Durbin, a senior official at the US Chamber of Commerce.

The Biden administration finalized its own rule in December, largely reverting to the interpretation that existed prior to the actions of the Obama and Trump administrations, although the new rule already faced its own legal challenges. Because of the Supreme Court ruling, the EPA must now go back to the drawing board.

Lawrence Hurley reports on the Supreme Court for NBC News Digital.

The post Supreme Court docket delivers blow to wetlands protections in win for Idaho landowners appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

(Adds details of judgment and background, paragraphs 3-12)

By John Kruzel and Nate Raymond

May 25 (Reuters) – The US Supreme Court on Thursday again limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory influence, ruling in favor of an Idaho couple who have long tried to build a home on property the EPA classified as hazardous classified as a protected wetland under a landmark federal pollution control law.

In a 9-0 decision, the judges overturned a lower court’s ruling against couple Chantell and Mike Sackett, which upheld the EPA’s finding that their property contained wetlands near a lake that are protected by the Clean Water Act from 1972 were protected. However, the judges unanimously agreed to overturn the lower court’s decision, differing in their reasoning.

The ruling was the latest instance in which the court supported a challenge to the extent of EPA’s ability to regulate environmental issues under applicable law. In a 6-3 ruling last June, supported by its conservative judges, the court limited the EPA’s powers to pass broad regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal and gas-fired power plants under another environmental law, the Clean Air Act enacted .

The case decided Thursday stemmed from the Sacketts’ purchase of a vacant lot in 2004 about 300 feet (90 meters) from Priest Lake, one of the largest lakes in Idaho, near the US-Canada border. In 2007, the couple began preparations for the construction of a house.

However, after the EPA filled in sand and gravel on the property, it issued an administrative order stating that the property contained wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act and that they needed a building permit, which they however, had not received.

This law bans the discharge of pollutants, including rocks and sand, into “United States waters,” which regulators have said for decades cover not only navigable waters but also adjacent wetlands such as swamps, marshes, and berms.

The story goes on

For decades, courts and regulators have debated the extent to which a property must be connected to a waterway in order to require a permit. The Supreme Court issued a ruling in 2006 that created further uncertainty.

Four judges at the time said the law governed land with a “continuous surface connection” to a waterway, while Justice Anthony Kennedy, who cast the deciding vote in the 5-4 case and is now retired, said the law extended further to areas in which it was a “significant connection” to a waterway.

The Sacketts had asked the Supreme Court to reconsider the matter after the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals relied on Kennedy’s test to uphold a judge’s finding that the Sacketts’ property contained wetlands.

The dispute previously made its way to the Supreme Court when the judges unanimously ruled in 2012 that the couple could challenge the EPA’s compliance order in court, facing financial penalties if they failed to comply.

Thursday’s court ruling came after President Joe Biden’s administration passed a rule in December that expands the definition of waterways protected by the Clean Water Act — a reversal from the era of former President Donald Trump. Biden in April vetoed a move by Congress aimed at repealing the rule.

A federal judge in North Dakota on April 12 temporarily blocked implementation of the rule in 24 states in response to a lawsuit by mostly Republican-run states. In a separate ruling on March 19, a Texas federal judge blocked enforcement of the rule in Texas and Idaho at the request of Republican attorneys general amid legal challenges to the new rule. Also in Kentucky, the ruling was stopped by the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 10 while the state appealed a lower court’s decision. (Reporting by John Kruzel; additional reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; editing by Will Dunham)

The post UPDATE 1-U.S. Supreme Courtroom guidelines in opposition to EPA in wetlands regulation problem appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

WASHINGTON (CBS SF/AP) — Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, giving President Joe Biden an opening he has pledged to fill by naming the first Black woman to the high court.

The 83-year-old San Francisco native has been a pragmatic force on a court that has grown increasingly conservative in recent years, trying to forge majorities with more moderate justices right and left of center.

READ MORE: One Dead In Crash, Fire Involving Big-Rig On Eastbound Richmond-San Rafael Bridge

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to preempt Breyer’s eventual announcement. NBC first reported the justice’s plans.

Multiple sources, including two White House officials and a senior Democratic congressional staffer, confirmed Breyer’s intention to step down to CBS News.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the White House would have no additional information regarding Breyer’s retirement.

“It has always been the decision of any Supreme Court Justice if and when they decide to retire, and how they want to announce it, and that remains the case today,” she tweeted.

Breyer has been a justice since 1994, appointed by President Bill Clinton. Along with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Breyer opted not to step down the last time the Democrats controlled the White House and the Senate during Barack Obama’s presidency. Ginsburg died in September 2020, and then-President Donald Trump filled the vacancy with a conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett.

Stephen Breyer, associate justice of the US Supreme Court, speaks during an interview on The David Rubenstein Show in New York, US, on Monday, Sept. 13, 2021. (Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Breyer’s departure, expected over the summer, won’t change the 6-3 conservative advantage on the court because his replacement will be nominated by Biden and almost certainly confirmed by a Senate where Democrats have the slimmest majority. It also makes conservative Justice Clarence Thomas the oldest member of the court at 73.

“In terms of the ideological makeup, this is not a big change,” Professor David Levine of UC Hastings College of the Law told KPIX 5, saying the confirmation battle over Breyer’s replacement may not be as contentious as the ones involving Barrett or Brett Kavanaugh .

As for the two Senators who’ve hit the brakes on Biden’s domestic agenda, Levine said don’t be surprised if they fall in line with their Democratic colleagues.

“Senator Manchin and Senator Sinema have gone along with the federal judges who President Biden has nominated,” he said.

gov. Gavin Newsom, a California senator and others reacted Wednesday to reports that US Supreme Court Justice and San Francisco native Stephen Breyer is planning to retire from the bench.

Newsom thanked the alumnus of Lowell High School and Stanford University for bringing “core California values ​​to our nation’s highest court throughout his distinguished tenure, shaping impactful decisions to strengthen our democracy and change lives for the better.”

The governor cited Breyer’s critiques of the nation’s death penalty system — Newsom has suspended the use of capital punishment in California during his tenure — as one of the ways he contributed to the cause of criminal justice reform.

US Sen. Alex Padilla, D-California, said Breyer “has demonstrated his commitment to justice, fairness, and equality under law time and time again.”

The alumni association from Breyer’s alma mater in San Francisco also weighed in on the reports of his retirement.

Lowell Alumni Association president Kate Lazarus said, “The Lowell Alumni Association congratulates Justice Stephen Breyer, Lowell High School class of 1955, on an exemplary career in public service. He is an inspiration to countless Lowell alumni and San Franciscans. We are immensely grateful and proud of his long commitment to justice, fairness, and the rule of law.”

READ MORE: COVID: Marin County Begins Easing Rules As Omicron Surge Likely Peaking

Among the names being circulated as potential nominees are California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, US Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, prominent civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill and US District Judge Michelle Childs, whom Biden has nominated to be an appeals court. Childs is a favorite of Rep. James Clyburn, DS.C., who made a crucial endorsement of Biden just before South Carolina’s presidential primary in 2020.

Often overshadowed by his fellow liberal Ginsburg, Breyer authored two major opinions in support of abortion rights on a court closely divided over the issue, and he laid out his growing discomfort with the death penalty in a series of dissenting opinions in recent years.

Breyer’s views on displaying the Ten Commandments on government property illustrate his search for a middle ground. He was the only member of the court in the majority in twin cases in 2005 that barred Ten Commandments displayed in two Kentucky courthouses, but allowed one to remain on the grounds of the state capitol in Austin, Texas.

In more than 27 years on the court, Breyer has been an active and cheerful questioner during arguments, a frequent public speaker and quick with a joke, often at his own expense. He made a good-natured appearance on a humorous National Public Radio program in 2007, failing to answer obscure questions about pop stars.

He is known for his elaborate, at times far-fetched, hypothetical questions to lawyers during arguments and he sometimes had the air of an absent-minded professor. In fact, he taught antitrust law at Harvard earlier in his professional career.

He also spent time working for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy when the Massachusetts Democrat was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That experience, Breyer said, made him a firm believer in compromise.

Still, he could write fierce dissents, as he did in the Bush v. Gore case that effectively decided the 2000 election in favor of Republican George W. Bush. Breyer unsuccessfully urged his colleagues to return the case to the Florida courts so they could create “a constitutionally proper contest” by which to decide the winner.

And at the end of a trying term in June 2007 in which he found himself on the losing end of roughly two dozen 5-4 rulings, Breyer’s frustrations bubbled over as he summarized his dissent from a decision that invalidated public school integration plans.

“It is not often that so few have so quickly changed so much,” Breyer said in a packed courtroom, an ad-libbed line that was not part of his opinion.

His time working in the Senate led to his appointment by President Jimmy Carter as a federal appeals court judge in Boston, and he was confirmed with bipartisan support even after Carter’s defeat for reelection in 1980. Breyer served for 14 years on the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals before moving up to the Supreme Court.

His 87-9 high-court confirmation was the last with fewer than 10 dissenting votes. Breyer’s opinions were notable because they never contained footnotes. Breyer was warned off such a writing device by Arthur Goldberg, the Supreme Court justice for whom Breyer clerked as a young lawyer.

“It is an important point to make if you believe, as I do, that the major function of an opinion is to explain to the audience of readers why it is that the court has reached that decision,” Breyer once said. “It’s not to prove that you’re right. You can’t prove that your right; there is no such proof.”

Born on August 15, 1938 in San Francisco, Breyer’s father Irving was a lawyer who served as legal counsel to the San Francisco Board of Education. Breyer graduated from Lowell High School in the city in 1955 and went on to study philiosophy at Stanford University, graduating with highest honors and membership in Phi Beta Kappa.

He attended Oxford, where he received first-class honors in philosophy, politics and economics.

Breyer then attended Harvard’s law school, where he worked on the Law Review and graduated with the highest honors.

Breyer’s first job after law school was as a law clerk to Goldberg. He then worked in the Justice Department’s antitrust division before splitting time as a Harvard law professor and a lawyer for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Breyer and his wife, Joanna, a psychologist and daughter of the late British Conservative leader John Blakenham, have three children — daughters Chloe and Nell and a son, Michael — and six grandchildren.

MORE NEWS: 49ers Playoffs: Health Expert Urges Safety For NFC Championship Gatherings

His younger brother Charles is a senior judge of the US District Court for the Northern District of California which is located at the Philip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco.

The post Supreme Court docket Justice, San Francisco Native Stephen Breyer To Retire – CBS San Francisco appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

Zügellose Verbrechen in San Francisco seien „nicht neu“ und „das Chaos herrscht in der Stadt“, sagte Polizei-Lt. Tracy McCray am Mittwoch gegenüber Fox News.

McCray machte diese Kommentare, nachdem ein Neiman Marcus in San Francisco von Ladendieben getroffen wurde, die mit Waren flohen. Unter Berufung auf Zeugen sagte die Verkaufsstelle, dass Vitrinen zertrümmert und Gegenstände aus den Regalen im Laden gehoben wurden, bevor die Verdächtigen entkommen konnten.

“In diesem Geschäft arbeiten Leute, die auf einen Gehaltsscheck angewiesen sind, und wenn sie schließen, gibt es keine Garantie, dass sie einen anderen Job finden”, sagte McCray, Vizepräsident der San Francisco Police Officers Association, gegenüber “America’s Newsroom”. “Das ist viel mehr als jemand, der eine Tasche stiehlt.”

SAN FRANCISCO NEIMAN MARCUS VON LADENHABERN GETROFFEN, DIE MIT WAREN FLUCHTEN

Darüber hinaus äußerte sich ein ehemaliger Polizeikommissar von San Francisco, Joe Alioto Veronese, über die Zunahme der Kriminalität in der Stadt.

“Wir sind hier in San Francisco in einem Zustand des Chaos und der Anarchie”, sagte Veronese. „Du siehst es jeden Tag… du erwartest es einfach und hoffst, dass du, wenn es passiert, nicht in der Schusslinie stehst.“

“America’s Newsroom”-Co-Moderatorin Dana Perino fragte McCray, wie die Reaktion sei, wenn sie einen Anruf wegen Diebstahl oder Einbruch erhalte.

„Es gibt keine Konsequenzen, Menschen zur Rechenschaft zu ziehen, weil Ausreden…[given] von bestimmten Politikern rausgeschmissen werden”, antwortete sie. “Sie sagen die idiotischsten Dinge, um schlechtes Benehmen zu rechtfertigen, und deshalb herrscht hier Chaos.”

SAN FRANCISCO OFFICER AUF VIRALEM VIDEO VON BRAZEN WALGREENS SHOPLIFTER: ‘GAUBER’ WISSEN, DASS ES KEINE KONSEQUENZEN GIBT

McCray verglich diese Vorfälle mit „Szenen aus einem Film“ und erwähnte, dass der Anstieg der Kriminalität in San Francisco ein „alltägliches Ereignis“ sei.

Unterdessen gaben Target-Geschäfte in der Golden City bekannt, dass sie ihre Betriebszeiten aufgrund eines erheblichen und alarmierenden Anstiegs von Diebstählen reduziert haben. Das Einzelhandelsunternehmen veröffentlichte folgendes Statement zum Anstieg der Kriminalität in San Francisco:

„Seit mehr als einem Monat erleben wir einen erheblichen und alarmierenden Anstieg von Diebstählen und Sicherheitsvorfällen in unseren Filialen in San Francisco, ähnlich den Berichten anderer Einzelhändler in der Region. Mit der Sicherheit unserer Gäste, Teammitglieder und Gemeinden als unsere oberste Priorität, haben wir unsere Betriebszeiten in sechs Geschäften in San Francisco vorübergehend reduziert.”

McCray sagte, Einzelhandelsunternehmen, die ihre Arbeitszeiten aufgrund von Kriminalität reduzieren, habe es in San Francisco noch nie gegeben.

KLICKEN SIE HIER, UM DIE FOX NEWS APP ZU ERHALTEN

„Jetzt gibt es Leute, deren Öffnungszeiten in diesen Geschäften gekürzt wurden. Sie werden Geld in ihrem Scheck für ihre täglichen Aktivitäten, Miete zahlen, Essen und Kleidung kaufen, verpassen“, schloss sie. “Ich bin davon nicht überrascht und niemand sollte es sein.”

Edmund DeMarche von Fox News hat zu diesem Bericht beigetragen.

The post San Francisco officer on rampant crimes: ‘Chaos reigns supreme’ appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The Alaska Supreme Court on Thursday heard a case that unions say could affect the pension plans of thousands of former state employees.

It is not the first time this case has been heard by the country’s highest court.

Juneau resident Peter Metcalfe said he was making college money in the early 1970s when he got a government job that involved “stamping kettles” at the Capitol. He basically worked as a chimney sweep using a four-foot brush to pull gallons of soot out of chimneys.

“I was wrapped in cloth to keep the soot away from me,” recalls Metcalfe. “I only remember standing in the Capitol fountain with the sun shining and sweat running down my face, and I’m sure I was all black. I thought ‘I have to be somewhere else.’ “

After only a few weeks, Metcalfe left town to try his hand at commercial fishing.

Metcalfe said he really didn’t get it at the time, but had he stayed in the state he could have been taken on as a Level I employee.

These Tier I benefits are known to be generous. These included a defined benefit retirement plan, cost of living adjustments, and family medical insurance upon retirement at age 55.

“A gold chain in Juneau with ‘Tier I’ on it, everyone loves you!” said Metcalfe’s attorney Mark Choate with a laugh. “You know you are the object of desire because it’s such a great pension system.”

These advantages – this “gold chain” – are no longer available to new civil servants.

Metcalfe didn’t work for the state again. But the crux of the matter is what would happen if he wanted to do that now.

In the early 1980s, he triggered his retirement account. But by then he could have paid his pension back and returned to work as a Level I employee.

He can’t do that now. If he went back to work for the state, he would get a new type of pension that is not as generous as his original plan.

In 2005, the legislature ended membership in all defined benefit pension plans and introduced the new defined contribution Tier IV plan.

“It just felt like Fiat was making laws,” Metcalfe said. “In other words, the governor and the legislature, the ruling party had majorities in both houses and the governor was Republican and they just got it through.”

Metcalfe believes this is against the Alaskan Constitution. In particular, he refers to Article XII, Section 7, which states that a worker’s pension must never be reduced and that membership of a pension plan is a contractual relationship with the state.

In this photo taken in February 2015, attorneys from left, Mark Choate, Jon Choate, and Kevin Wakley, along with Larry Davis of the Alaska Division of Retirement and Benefits, are preparing for a hearing in the Alaska Supreme Court in Juneau. (Photo by Matt Miller / KTOO)

Oral arguments before the judges on Thursday should focus on the interpretation of the pension benefits section of the Constitution and whether it is unconstitutional to deny Metcalfe’s potential pension benefits.

Prosecutors refused to do a taped interview for this story. But they argued before the Alaska Supreme Court five years ago that Metcalfe finally ended his contractual relationship with the state when he paid off his retirement. They also said he waited too long to file a lawsuit.

Two incumbent judges have withdrawn because of a possible conflict of interest.

Two former judges, Dana Fabe and Warren Matthews, came out of retirement to hear and rule the case.

The Alaska Supreme Court usually delivers an opinion 6-12 months after oral arguments.

State workers’ unions have stated that a decision in favor of Metcalfe could also affect up to 85,000 former workers who may wish to return to a state job and be carried over into their previous retirement plans.

The post Retirement advantages case heard once more by Alaska Supreme Court docket appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

June 15, 2021, 4:17 a.m.

The US Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from oil companies like BP Plc and Exxon Mobil Corp. It left a key procedural decision that benefited two California cities suing billions of dollars to combat the effects of climate change.

The judges refused, without comment, to consider the industry’s offer to move the lawsuit in federal court, where companies tend to do better than state courts.

The rejection is a victory for San Francisco and Oakland, part of a group of litigants across the country seeking reimbursement for costs related to sea level rise, including coastal flooding, …

Greg Stohr

Bloomberg news

© 2021 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

All rights reserved

The post Oil Corporations Rejected by Supreme Courtroom on Shifting Local weather Battle appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from oil companies like BP Plc and Exxon Mobil Corp. It left a key procedural decision that benefited two California cities suing billions of dollars to combat the effects of climate change.

The judges refused, without comment, to consider the industry’s offer to move the lawsuit in federal court, where companies tend to do better than state courts.

Explore dynamic updates of the most important data points on earth

The rejection is a victory for San Francisco and Oakland, part of a group of litigants across the country calling for reimbursement of costs related to sea level rise, including coastal flooding, increased coastal erosion and saltwater impacts on sewage treatment plants.

Chevron Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc and ConocoPhillips are also named as defendants in the lawsuit.

More of

Cities are suing state law, claiming the companies created a “public nuisance” through a decades-long campaign to discredit the science of global warming, misrepresent and cover up the dangers of fossil fuels, and downplay the potentially disastrous consequences.

The companies said the lawsuit raises federal issues that cannot be adequately addressed from state to state. An appeals court rejected this line of argument, but said the companies could still bring other arguments in favor of referring the case to federal court.

The case is Chevron v Oakland, 20-1089.

Before it’s here, it’s at the Bloomberg Terminal.

LEARN MORE

The post Oil Firms Rejected by Supreme Courtroom on Transferring Local weather Struggle appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

WASHINGTON (AP) – A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that thousands of people living in the United States on humanitarian grounds cannot apply for permanent residence.

Judge Elena Kagan wrote for the court that the federal immigration law prohibits people who entered the country illegally and now have temporary protection status from applying for “green cards” to stay in the country permanently.

CONTINUE READING: When does your state’s unemployment benefit end?

The term applies to people who come from countries devastated by war or disaster. It protects them from deportation and allows them to work legally. There are 400,000 people from 12 countries with TPS status.

The outcome of a lawsuit involving a couple from El Salvador who had been in the United States since the 1990s revolved around the question of whether people who entered illegally and enjoyed humanitarian protection were ever “admitted to the United States under immigration law “Were.

Kagan wrote that it wasn’t them. “The TPS program gives foreigners nonimmigrant status, but does not allow them. So awarding TPS does not make an illegal participant … eligible for a green card, ”she wrote.

The House of Representatives has already passed laws that would allow TPS recipients to become permanent residents, Kagan noted. The bill is faced with uncertain prospects in the Senate.

President Joe Biden has said he will support the change in law. But his administration, like the Trump administration, argued that the current immigration law does not allow people who have entered the country illegally to apply for permanent residence.

On the flip side, there were immigrant groups who argued that many people who came to the United States for humanitarian reasons have lived in the country for many years, gave birth to American citizens, and put down roots in the United States

Federal courts across the country had come to conflicting decisions as to whether granting TPS status alone was sufficient to induce an immigrant to seek permanent residence.

CONTINUE READING: Body identified as a resident of San Leandro found at San Francisco International Airport

Former President Donald Trump tried to cancel the program for many immigrants because he was afraid they might be sent back to their home countries, where they have not lived for many years.

“All of these United States-based families who have lived in our communities for decades have been exposed to very real threats,” said Lisa Koop, attorney for the National Immigrant Justice Center, who also teaches at Notre Dame Law School.

In 2001, after a series of earthquakes in their home country, the US granted Salvadoran migrants legal protection to allow them to stay in the US.

People from 11 other countries are similarly protected. These are: Haiti, Honduras, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.

Monday’s ruling does not affect immigrants with TPS who originally entered the U.S. legally and then, say, exceeded their visas, noted Kagan. Since these people were legally admitted into the country and later received humanitarian protection, they can apply for permanent residence permits.

Also on Monday the dish:

– Declined to contest the requirement that only men sign up for the convocation when they are 18 years old.

Agrees to hear a case where the Biden administration wants to close a lawsuit over the FBI’s surveillance of Muslims in California for risk of divulging “state secrets.”

MORE NEWS: Report: “Boogaloo” suspect in murders of law enforcement officers belonged to militia seeking war against police

– Denied an appeal challenging the US Food and Drug Administration’s authority to regulate electronic cigarettes.

The post Supreme Courtroom Guidelines Towards Immigrants with Momentary Protected Standing – CBS San Francisco appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.