The city of Huntington Beach has vowed to continue its litigation challenging a state law requiring local governments to set zoning targets for new housing, despite a federal appeals court ruling rejecting the city’s arguments.
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision on Oct. 30 concluding that Huntington Beach’s status as a charter city does not allow it to raise federal constitutional claims against the state’s housing laws. The panel cited a previous case, City of South Lake Tahoe v. California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, to affirm a lower court’s ruling dismissing Huntington Beach’s claims.
“We are not persuaded by the city’s efforts to differentiate South Lake Tahoe,” the appeals court decision states. “The city argues that our standing bar does not apply because Huntington Beach is a charter city, which it claims is not a ‘political subdivision.’ Yet our precedent has applied (the South Lake Tahoe case’s) standing rule to California’s charter cities.”
Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates said he wasn’t surprised by the Ninth Circuit decision based on questions posed during court proceedings.
“I am surprised that the decision was so brief and that it misapprehended the applicable law,” Gates told the Southern California Record in an email. “There was no consideration for the decades-long body of law that holds that charter cities are NOT political subdivisions of the state. We will, therefore, petition the Ninth Circuit for en banc review.” (emphasis by capitalization in original)
Such a review would involve a full panel of 11 appellate judges.
The panel’s decision stressed that California’s charter cities remain subordinate political bodies to the state as a whole and are not “sovereign entities.”
“That subsidiary status brings charter cities within the rule of (the South Lake Tahoe opinion), which relied on Supreme Court precedent holding that municipal corporations such as the city of Huntington Beach lack federal constitutional rights against their parent states,” the panel said.
The decision also concluded that the city lacked standing to advance its legal arguments because it failed to explain how city officials suffered a constitutional injury outside of their status as local officials. City officials maintain their personal free speech rights, but they cannot use such freedoms to avoid following state law, the court said.
State officials expressed satisfaction with the Ninth Circuit decision.
“I am pleased that yet another court has emphatically rejected Huntington Beach’s attempt to exempt itself from state housing laws,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a prepared statement. “While the city has been wasting the public’s time and money pursuing this meritless lawsuit, its neighboring communities – along with every Californian struggling to keep a roof over their heads or wondering where they’re going to sleep tonight – need Huntington Beach to step up and adopt a housing plan without further delay.”
California will pursue all legal remedies to resolve the case and stop the city’s violation of the state’s Housing Element law, Bonta said.
In a previous ruling, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal required the city to draw up a new housing plan.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has called Huntington Beach’s legal actions cynical and an example of “unlawful NIMBY policies.” He urged city officials to follow state law and do their part to increase housing units within the city.