This legislation schedules a closed session for the Board of Supervisors on October 28, 2025, to discuss legal matters involving the City and various litigation cases. The session will focus on receiving advice from the City Attorney regarding ongoing and anticipated lawsuits against the federal government and other parties.
Closed Session for the Board of Supervisors to convene 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; scheduled pursuant to the Motion contained in File No. 251069, to be considered on October 28, 2025.
How it got here
This legislation originated from the need for the Board of Supervisors to confer with the City Attorney regarding various existing and anticipated litigation matters.
The City Attorney identified the need for the Board of Supervisors to discuss ongoing and potential litigation involving the City, prompting the introduction of a closed session.
The Board of Supervisors received the motion related to the closed session and assigned it for consideration.
The Board convened in a closed session to discuss the existing and anticipated litigation matters as outlined in the motion.
Reconstructed from attached documents & the official record