A coalition of homeless advocates is suing the City of Los Angeles for allegedly violating California’s open-meeting law when it secretly approved a controversial encampment removal plan.
At a Glance
- LA is being sued by LA Community Action Network for a Brown Act violation.
- City Council approved an encampment removal plan in a closed-door session.
- The plan mandates the clearance of 9,800 encampments by June 2026.
- The city must also create 12,915 new shelter beds by June 2027.
- City attorneys argue their private session was legal and justified.
Legal Firestorm Over Secret Vote
The Los Angeles Community Action Network (LA CAN) has filed suit against the city, accusing it of illegally approving a massive encampment removal plan behind closed doors. The lawsuit claims that on January 31, 2024, the Los Angeles City Council went into a two-hour closed session and emerged having approved the removal strategy—without public debate or notice, violating the Ralph M. Brown Act.
That strategy, created as part of a settlement with the LA Alliance for Human Rights, requires the city to clear 9,800 homeless encampments citywide. LA CAN, which had intervened in the long-running litigation, alleges that the process excluded public input—even from the unhoused residents directly affected.
Watch now: Know Your Rights: The Brown Act and Open Meeting Rights · YouTube
City attorneys have defended the council’s actions, asserting that the closed session was appropriate due to legal sensitivities around the federal settlement. However, critics argue that the lack of transparency undermines public trust and potentially violates state law.
Courtroom Accountability vs. Policy Expediency
The lawsuit intensifies scrutiny over how the city is managing its obligations under the LA Alliance settlement. That 2022 agreement obligates Los Angeles to construct 12,915 shelter beds or housing placements by June 2027. The city must also meet quarterly benchmarks for encampment reductions, making the pace and precision of implementation legally significant.
In early 2024, LA Alliance notified U.S. District Judge David O. Carter that the city was already 447 days overdue in finalizing its encampment removal framework. The city’s sudden closed-session approval that January now faces judicial and public examination, especially since the final version of the plan was never disclosed prior to the council’s vote.
Video footage from the council’s January 31 meeting shows members returning from closed session and confirming approval, without elaborating on specifics. This omission now sits at the core of LA CAN’s legal challenge.
Broader Implications for Public Oversight
At stake is more than compliance with a homelessness settlement; the lawsuit could redefine how California municipalities interpret and apply the Brown Act in high-stakes policy decisions. If the court finds the city in violation, it may invalidate the current encampment plan or force a redo with full public involvement.
Homeless advocates argue that procedural transparency is essential—not just for legality, but to ensure humane and effective policy outcomes. Meanwhile, the city contends it acted within its rights, prioritizing expedient resolution of federal obligations.
Either way, the lawsuit places a spotlight on the fragile intersection of emergency policymaking, civil rights, and public accountability in America’s second-largest city.
Sources
Los Angeles Times
CalMatters
Southern California Public Radio
