There are days when the best news for local governments from the Ninth Circuit is the announcement "the court issued no decisions today", but not today! Today, the court took an opportunity to review the lower court decision that ordered the city and county of Los Angeles to spend billions of dollars on the homeless and engaged in some of the broadest overreach by a judge one could imagine and reversed. IMLA filed an amicus brief in this case and we were extremely well represented and thank the legal team of Judy M. Lam, Maynard Cooper & Gale LLP, Los Angeles, California; John C. Neiman Jr. and Calbe C. Wolanek, Maynard Cooper & Gale P.C., Birmingham, Alabama for a job well done. Perhaps, this quote from the opinion will explain that my description of judicial overbreadth is not hyperbole: "Of these six claims, Plaintiffs had not asserted or moved for injunctive relief on the first four and had asserted the fifth against only the County and the sixth against only the City. The district court's explanation for why these claims had a likelihood of success on the merits also relied on legal theories that Plaintiffs did not plead or argue, including the race-based discrimination theories underpinning the state created danger, equal protection, and substantive due process claims. In addition, the district court relied almost exclusively on extra-record evidence, and expressly did not rely on Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction evidence. In deciding that the lower court abused its discretion the panel wrote: As we discussed, the district court granted relief based on claims that Plaintiffs did not allege, supported by novel legal theories that Plaintiffs did not argue, or against Defendants against whom the claim was not pled. In doing so, the district court abused its discretion because it only had equitable power to grant relief on "the merits of the case or controversy before it," and "does not have the authority to issue an injunction" "based on claims not pled in the complaint." Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). LA Alliance for Human Rights vs LA County https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/23/21-55395.pdf IMLA supports local governments through its amicus program. We can only support members and we need members to join IMLA so we can continue these efforts. If your city or county is not a member, please consider joining to help keep our program available and the voice of local governments heard. Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director/General Counsel P: (202) 466-5424 x7110 M: (240) 876-6790 D: (202) 742-1016 [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> [logo]<https://imla.org/> 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/> Plan Ahead! IMLA's 86th Annual Conference<https://imla.org/annual-conference/>, Sept. 29-Oct. 3, 2021 in Minneapolis, MN IN-PERSON or VIRTUAL! IMLA's 2022 Mid-Year Seminar<https://imla.org/seminars/>, April 8-11, 2022 in Washington, D.C.!