Should the State of California MANDATE corrupt elections? Should the State of California interfere with the votes of the people and tell a city how its zoning and permit process be run? Yes—if you ask Generalissimo Newsom.
“Huntington Beach argued Monday before a Ninth Circuit panel that its status as a unique charter city should give it standing to bring federal claims against California for a state mandate requiring the city build more housing.
“As a creature of the state, the left hand can’t sue the right hand,” said Huntington Beach attorney Michael Gates, arguing Huntington Beach should be able to challenge state laws in federal court. “The creature can’t sue the creator and charter cities are created by the pe —”
“Well they’re not really created by the people. I mean, they’re still allowed by the state,” said U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, a Trump appointee, cutting Gates off.
Gates retorted that charter cities were created to be independent entities, unlike general law cities, or “political subdivisions” that are barred from suing the state.”
If Huntington Beach loses, we all lose. There will no longer be cities in California—just communities run by Sacramento. Just like Moscow and Russia.
Charter cities should be allowed to sue states, Huntington Beach tells Ninth Circuit
California maintains Huntington Beach is still subject to a state housing mandate and that its charter status doesn’t make it the “51st state.”
Sam Ribakoff, Courthousenews, 10/21/24 https://www.courthousenews.com/charter-cities-should-be-allowed-to-sue-states-huntington-beach-tells-ninth-circuit/
PASADENA, Calif. (CN) — Huntington Beach argued Monday before a Ninth Circuit panel that its status as a unique charter city should give it standing to bring federal claims against California for a state mandate requiring the city build more housing.
“As a creature of the state, the left hand can’t sue the right hand,” said Huntington Beach attorney Michael Gates, arguing Huntington Beach should be able to challenge state laws in federal court. “The creature can’t sue the creator and charter cities are created by the pe —”
“Well they’re not really created by the people. I mean, they’re still allowed by the state,” said U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, a Trump appointee, cutting Gates off.
Gates retorted that charter cities were created to be independent entities, unlike general law cities, or “political subdivisions” that are barred from suing the state.
“Yeah, but they don’t have independence from the state,” Nelson responded. “They’re not exempt from state law.”
Gates also said that not only does Huntington Beach’s status as a charter city mean that the city is not a political subdivision, but prior cases didn’t fully analyze what the legal character of a charter city is — making this a “case of first impression,” meaning it’s a new legal issue or a new interpretation of the law that hasn’t been addressed by the court.
But that argument seemed to stretch the patience of the panel.
“The city of Huntington Beach is not some free-floating entity that gets to do whatever it wants and call itself whatever it wants and is not a city in the state of California. I just don’t understand this argument,” said U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Aaron Bress, a Trump appointee.
California held in their arguments that charter cities are creatures of the state constitution, but they’re municipal corporations like any other city,
“Adopting a city charter does not turn them into the 51st state,” said Thomas Kinzinger, an attorney for the California Attorney General representing the defendants.
The city’s claim that the housing requirement violates city council members’ and the city’s own First and Fourteenth Amendment rights doesn’t hold up because “the state’s housing and environmental laws regulate cities. They do not regulate people,” Kinzinger added.
Huntington Beach sued the state in 2023 to try to wriggle free of the state’s plans to build more housing, especially high-density housing, across California to alleviate the state’s housing crisis, even in exclusive coastal areas. The city argues the state’s mandate deprived charter cities their authority to control their own municipal affairs.
The appeal to the Ninth Circuit follows U.S. District Judge Fred Slaughter’s dismissal of the city’s suit in November 2023, where he found the city lacked standing to bring the suit.
The case is not about the merits of the law, Kinzinger said Monday, but about the issue of whether the city has standing to bring the suit.
Those merits should have been brought up by the city in the state’s suit against the city in state court to force it to comply with state housing laws, but the city hasn’t made those arguments yet, he added.
California’s state suit against Huntington Beach predates the city’s current attempt to sidestep the law and challenges the city’s refusal to adopt a state law intended to boost affordable housing as rent and home prices perpetually increase.
The law requires municipalities to outline how they’ll allow for the construction of a certain amount of housing units, especially lower-income units, in their general plans. It also streamlines the process for adding “in-law units” to single-family homes and for subdividing residential lots into multifamily housing projects, like duplexes and triplexes.
Earlier this year a Superior Court judge ruled that the city has to comply with those state housing rules. That ruling is also being appealed and cross-appealed.
When asked by Nelson why, even if they could get around the standing question, the court shouldn’t just defer to the lower court, Gates said the city brought its claims to federal court and not as a defense in the state court case.
“You can’t strategically just get out of Younger abstention by not bringing claims and saying they’re not being adjudicated,” Nelson said, referring to a doctrine that federal courts should abstain from cases that are still pending in state court.
“You don’t need a federal answer, you need a state answer whether or not charter cities are immune as it were or separate sovereigns,” said Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Tallman, a Bill Clinton appointee.
