Berkeley Can Clear Homeless Camp Subject to Limits for Disabled

Berkeley, Calif., can mostly proceed with its plan to shut down a homeless encampment in a city park where safety concerns, including the spread of a flu-like bacterial illness, pose an imminent hazard, a federal judge said.

But the city first must accommodate some of the camp’s disabled residents by conducting individualized assessments of how the move will affect them, the US District Court for the Northern District of California said April 3. Additionally, the Fourth and 14th Amendments, along with the state-created danger doctrine, prohibit the city from impounding or destroying any vehicle used as a primary shelter in the encampment unless it first makes an individualized assessment of the danger it poses, Judge Edward M. Chen said.

The Harrison encampment has been a fixture in Berkeley for several years, but an escalating number of safety hazards, including used syringes, raw sewage, extensive rat burrows, and a documented outbreak of leptospirosis bacteria led the city to order the camp’s closure in late 2024. The city posted notices around the camp telling the residents they had about a month to leave and that any vehicles left behind would be impounded and towed.

Berkeley Homeless Union sued the city to stop its abatement actions. The court mostly allowed the city to move forward, but said it had to first conduct individualized assessments of the disabled residents’ bias claims in June 2025.

Chen, in his latest ruling, awarded the city a limited summary judgment, allowing it to proceed without providing housing or shelter placements for the Harrison encampment disabled residents. The residents can’t stay where they are pending housing availability, and the city isn’t required to designate, create, or identify sanctioned campsites or areas for unhoused residents to relocate without fear of enforcement, he said.

But the city can’t impound, remove, or tow vehicles in which residents live without first making specific, fact-based determinations as to whether a particular vehicle obstructs traffic or poses a concrete, individualized health or safety threat; giving the owner written notice and a reasonable chance to move the vehicle; and considering alternatives, Chen said. The city can’t destroy a vehicle unless it rejects other remedies, he said.

A rule placing size restrictions on tents and other shelters that occupy public sidewalks and right of ways may not be applied categorically, Chen also said. The city can’t deny a placement without considering individualized facts as to how the denial would affect four of the disabled residents, whose disability-related shelter needs may require a bigger tent.

Berkeley also must provide disabled Harrison encampment residents with moving assistance, but retains the right to destroy belongings that can’t be safely moved or stored, Chen said. BHU, however, didn’t demonstrate nondisabled residents needed the same accommodation, he said.

Anthony Prince and Frank Moore, both of Berkeley, Calif., represent the plaintiffs. Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo and the Berkeley City Attorney’s Office represent the city.

The case is Berkeley Homeless Union v. City of Berkeley, N.D. Cal., No. 25-cv-1414, 4/3/26.