The ruling has a table of contents, and starts with this:
Quote:
In the ebb of afternoon sunlight, young Americans looked at their former compatriots as adversaries as they advanced towards them. Young teenagers carried battle flags to rally upon in the chaos that would soon ensue. There is nothing free about freedom. It is borne from immense pain, suffering, and sacrifice. Our country has struggled since the Emancipation Proclamation to right the evil of slavery. One hundred and fifty-eight years ago, at the site of the bloodiest battle of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln made a short and profound speech, exemplifying an unshakable moral commitment to end the abomination of slavery despite the terrible sacrifice of life
|
and basically purports to use disproportionate impact of homeless on black Angelenos to justify the sweeping ruling.
The laws the judge uses to justify the ruling are the equal protection and due process clauses of the US Constitution's 14th amendment, including the claim that homelessness is a state-created harm, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act. He also cites a California state law, which states that "Every county and every city and county shall relieve and support all incompetent, poor, indigent persons, and those incapacitated by age, disease, or accident, lawfully resident therein, when such persons are not supported and relieved by their relatives or friends, by their own means, or by state hospitals or other state or private institutions."
I don't know the whole history of the political situation regarding this issue, but the ruling orders a $1b fund created and escrowed within 7 days, a sweeping audit of related city programs, a moratorium on the sale of ALL city property, a report from the mayor as to why he has not declared a state of emergency surrounding homelessness, in addition to the headline order of housing everyone by October. Apparently he didn't even have a hearing before the ruling.
Full order here:
https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/4.../injuction.pdf
On the one hand I'm pretty (legally) conservative and dislike this type of judging. On the other hand, again I don't know all the history of this issue in LA, but it almost read like the judge is going purporsefully over the top to force action.