Legal Advocacy
The League of California Cities advocates before the courts through the Legal Advocacy Program because laws affecting cities are made in the courts as well as in the Legislature. Cal Cities weighs in on legal issues when participation is likely to affirmatively advance cities’ collective legal interests by establishing a legal precedent that will help cities more effectively serve their communities. For Cal Cities to become involved, cities should agree on the preferred outcome and no city should be adversely affected by its efforts.
Legal Advocacy Committee
Comprised of city attorneys from across California, the Legal Advocacy Committee helps Cal Cities determine which cases and Attorney General opinions — which hold “great weight” in the courts — merit statewide support. Legal advocacy often comes in the form of amicus assistance — a brief filed by an entity or individual who is not a party in a given lawsuit but may be affected by the outcome. Amicus briefs can take a broad perspective, advising the court about the implications of resolving the issues presented.
Amicus Support
The full process for filing an amicus brief can take several months. It is critical that a request is made at the earliest possible opportunity. Amicus assistance is evaluated by the Legal Advocacy Committee, which meets six times annually, approximately every other month. In certain cases, an executive committee meeting may be scheduled before the next full meeting. Amicus letters and briefs are prepared with the assistance of city attorneys and pro bono counsel. It is the responsibility of the requestor to identify a letter or brief writer.
Here are some of the recent amicus curiae briefs filed by Cal Cities:
- Dreher v. City of Los Angeles - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Castanares v. San Diego Unified Port District - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. Co of Santa Clara - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Open Main Street v. City of San Buenaventura – Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- K.C. v. County of Merced - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Garst v. Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchos Water, et al. – Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- BPA v City of Berkeley - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Weseloh v Co of Santa Cruz - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Coalition for Pacificans for an Updated Plan v. City of Pacifica - Amicus Brief
- Carachure v. City of Azusa - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- City of San Jose v. HJTA - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Gilliland v. City of Pleasanton - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Sacramento Television Stations Inc. v. Superior Court of Placer County (City of Roseville) - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Shear Development Co. v. California Coastal Commission - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Whitehead v. City of Oakland - Amicus Brief
- The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa - 9th Circuit Opinion
- HJTA, et. al. v City of Long Beach - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Gluck v. City and County of San Francisco - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Rodgers v. City of Redlands - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Law Foundation of Silicon Valley v. Superior Court (City of Gilroy) - Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- City of Grants Pass v. Johnson – Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Legislature of the State of California et al. v. Weber (Hiltachk) – Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Coronado Citizens for Transparent Government v. City of Coronado – Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Coziahr v. Otay Water District – Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Love v. Villicana, et al. (City of Pasadena) – Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Koi Nation of Northern California v. City of Clearlake – Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Di Lauro v. City of Burbank – Cal Cities Amicus Brief
- Cohen v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County – Cal Cities Amicus Brief
