A court order limiting the city of San Francisco's ability to remove people from street encampments who have nowhere else to go will remain in effect as long as the lawsuit continues, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit challenges San Francisco's past policies regarding encampment removal as fundamentally unjust and illegal, and grants a preliminary injunction. The victory marked a substantial victory for the Coalition for the Homeless, a progressive advocacy group. A court ruling that protects the right of homeless people to sleep in public places in certain circumstances.

Thursday's ruling is the latest in a broader legal debate over homelessness in the American West and how local governments should legally address it. The debate pits progressive activists and advocacy groups against liberal leaders such as San Francisco Mayor London Breed and Gov. Gavin Newsom, who have been in charge of downtown and He joins many voters in dissatisfied with the expansion of encampments in other nearby areas. The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.

The debate has also caused tensions between liberal and conservative justices in the 9th Circuit, including another case in Grants Pass, Oregon, that is being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a Thursday ruling, the Ninth Circuit declined to consider several arguments in support of stricter enforcement actions raised by San Francisco and a coalition of other California cities in recent filings, stating that these arguments was not properly filed or substantiated by the facts of the case. Lower District Court. But the justices acknowledged that the injunction applied only to people who are “involuntarily homeless,” meaning those who were not provided alternative housing or shelter by the city, making that point clear to lower courts. I ordered him to do it.

In recent months, the city of San Francisco has sought to justify its continued efforts to clear the encampments by arguing that the campsites are home to people who have been provided shelter and housing.

The appellate judges also told the lower court that the injunction prohibits the city from “threatening to enforce” the suspended law, but does not prohibit the mere presence of police officers near the outpost. I was ordered to clearly state that no.

John Doe, chief attorney for the ACLU of Northern California, which represents the coalition, said Thursday's order means San Francisco will continue to increase resources and provide shelter and housing to homeless people, rather than simply criminalizing poverty. This should help ensure that.

“It's a great victory,” he said.

Jen Kwart, a spokeswoman for San Francisco's Atty. David Chiu said the Court of Appeals “reaffirmed and further clarified that the injunction applies only to those who have become involuntarily homeless, not those who have refused shelter.” He said he was grateful for that.

But Kwart said his office was “disappointed” by the court's decision not to consider arguments raised by the city in the appeals process, including the scope of the regulations, leaving significant legal questions about solving homelessness unresolved. The case remained unresolved, she said.

“As long as cities operate under this uncertainty, we cannot reasonably expect to solve our homelessness problem,” Kwart said. “At some point, the courts will need to clarify the law in this area, and it is unfortunate that we all have to continue to wait for that clarification in the midst of a serious homelessness crisis.”

Breed's office declined to comment on pending litigation, but numbers released Thursday show a 22% increase in the number of people involved in shelters and housing last year, and a 64% increase in the number of people city officials interacted with at encampments. % said they “refused the offer of shelter.'' or reported to already have shelter or housing. ”

Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement that the ruling “will only cause further delays and disruption in addressing homelessness.”

The liberal justices argued that the Constitution, particularly the Eighth Amendment's provisions against cruel and unusual punishments and excessive fines, should allow people to wear certain protective equipment and be in certain public places when they have nowhere else to go. It claimed to protect the rights of homeless people who sleep. Conservative justices rejected that idea, arguing that local governments have a long legal tradition of enforcing “anti-vagrancy” laws.

Circuit Judge Lucy H. Koh, who wrote the court's opinion Thursday, was joined by Circuit Judge Roopali H. Desai. Both were appointed by President Biden. Circuit Judge Patrick J. Bumatai, appointed by President Trump, dissented.

Coe wrote that the case “raises difficult and important legal questions with real stakes for San Francisco and the thousands of unhoused people who call it home.” But Coe added that the appellate court was unable to delve into the city's arguments regarding geographic and time limitations on encampment restrictions, something the lower court never did.

Lower courts will now have to consider whether the city's rules “fail to provide a realistically available place for people who have become voluntarily homeless,” Koh wrote.

Coe wrote that his committee is bound by past Ninth Circuit precedent on the Eighth Amendment when it comes to such issues, but the Supreme Court could soon review existing precedent. He pointed out that there is a gender.

In his dissent, Bumatai wrote that the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly misunderstood Eighth Amendment protections related to homeless encampments, endangering public safety in the process. .

“It should not be cruel or abnormal to prohibit homeless people from sleeping, camping, or lodging whenever and wherever they choose,” Bumatai wrote. “Homeless people deserve the utmost respect and consideration, but they are not exempt from our laws.”

Mr. Newsom asked the conservative-leaning Supreme Court to take up the Grants Pass case and rule in favor of local governments seeking to rein in public advocacy. He said Thursday's ruling reinforced the need for such intervention.

Doe, the coalition's attorney, called Newsom's position “very concerning.”

“It is extremely unfortunate and shameful that our policy leaders would scapegoat unhoused people to blame for their own policy failures,” Du said. “Homelessness did not appear out of nowhere. It is a direct result of a lack of investment in affordable housing.”