Housing group sues Newsom over SB 9 suspension in fire zones

A housing advocacy group has filed a sweeping legal challenge against Gov. Gavin Newsom and several Los Angeles-area governments, alleging they unlawfully suspended SB 9 in affluent, fire-damaged neighborhoods after the Palisades and Eaton fires.

The petition argues that Newsom exceeded his emergency powers and bowed to political pressure in blocking a state housing law intended to help fire victims rebuild -- a move the plaintiffs say worsens the region's housing shortage and violates both state law and the California Constitution.

"SB 9 could be a lifeline for fire victims, and its suspension harms the people who suffered the greatest losses," the petition states, noting that many homeowners in the burn areas were underinsured and cannot afford to rebuild without the option to add a second unit. "Without that ability, property owners cannot afford to rebuild their own home or provide housing to their displaced neighbors."

The lawsuit was filed by Patterson & O'Neill PC attorneys Ryan J. Patterson and Brian J. O'Neill in San Francisco and Ephraim S. Margolin in Los Angeles.

"Even friends must hold each other accountable sometimes," Patterson said in a phone call on Thursday. "The governor has been an ally in the fight for housing, and we hope he does the right thing here."

The plaintiffs are housing advocacy group Yes In My Backyard, as well as Sonja Trauss, the organization's founder and executive director, and Andrew Slocum, leader of its Los Angeles chapter.

Respondents include Newsom, the State of California, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, the City of Los Angeles, the City of Pasadena and its city council, the City of Malibu and its city council and the County of Los Angeles.

Malibu Interim City Attorney Trevor L. Rusin of Best Best & Krieger LLP in Los Angeles declined to comment in an email on Thursday. Representatives and counsel for the remaining respondents did not respond to phoned or emailed requests for comment by press time.

The lawsuit concerns Newsom's July suspension of SB 9, which permits up to four housing units on qualifying single-family properties, in high-fire risk zones within the boundaries of the Palisades and Eaton fires. Yes In My Backyard et al. v. Newsom et al., 25STCP04761 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 10, 2025).

A key reason given for the suspension was to keep potential evacuation routes clear in the event of another fire. However, the petition claimed that the suspension violated the California Emergency Services Act by aiming to mitigate a potential future disaster rather than address a current emergency.

"The fires were extinguished in January 2025 that emergency has passed," Patterson said. "The emergency that we are in now is a housing emergency, as so many homes were destroyed by the fires."

Newsom's executive order prompted similarly unlawful SB 9 bans by Los Angeles County, as well as the cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena and Malibu, the lawsuit claimed.

"This case demonstrates the lobbying influence of small, highly connected, wealthy communities, and their ability to stop a type of housing they dislike, even in the midst of a generational housing crisis," the petition read. "These communities have been opposed to SB 9 since the legislature was debating its passage in 2021. Now, they are exploiting the tragedies of the Palisades and Eaton fires to stop the production of housing in some of the wealthiest and most influential neighborhoods in the region."

The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring the respondents to comply with the Emergency Services Act and SB 9 and a judicial declaration that the order suspending SB 9 and the local governments' reliance on that order are unlawful, unconstitutional, and void.