The motion allows the Board of Supervisors to meet privately on October 28, 2025, to discuss legal matters involving the City, including ongoing litigation against various parties. This closed session is in accordance with state and local laws regarding legal advice and existing litigation.
Motion that the Board of Supervisors convene in closed session on October 28, 2025, pursuant to California Government Code, Section 54956.9(a), and San Francisco Administrative Code, Section 67.10(d), for the purpose of conferring with, or receiving advice from, the City Attorney regarding the following existing litigation matters in which the City is a party: State of New Jersey, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10139 (D. Mass.), Case No. 25-1170 (1st Cir.), Case Nos. 24A884, 24A885, 24A886 (U.S. Sup. Ct.); City and County of San Francisco, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01350 (N.D. Cal.), Case No. 25-3889 (9th Cir.); Doctors for America, et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00322 (D.D.C.); American Fed. of Gov’t Employees, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal.), Case Nos. 25-3293, 25-4476 (9th Cir.), Case No. 24A1174 (U.S. Sup. Ct.); King County, et al. v. Turner, et al., Case No. 2:25-00814 (W.D. Wash.), Case No. 25-3364 (9th Cir.); City of Chicago, et al. v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 25-cv-05462 (N.D. Ill.); Appalachian Voices, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Case No. 25-cv-01982 (D.D.C.); County of Santa Clara, et al. v. Noem, et al., Case No. 25-cv-08330 (N.D. Cal.); and regarding anticipated litigation the City may initiate to challenge actions by the federal government as plaintiff.
How it got here
This legislation originated from the need for the Board of Supervisors to discuss ongoing and potential litigation involving the City and County of San Francisco.
The City Attorney identified several existing litigation matters involving the City, prompting the need for a closed session to discuss these cases.
The motion to convene in closed session was referred for adoption without committee reference at the next Board meeting.
The Board of Supervisors approved the motion to convene in closed session to discuss existing and anticipated litigation matters.
Reconstructed from attached documents & the official record