The San Francisco Board of Supervisors this week voted to settle one of two lawsuits against Mayor London Breed and other city leaders brought by a conservative group due to a now-lapsed program that sought to provide guaranteed income to some transgender people. The settlement was only for attorneys' fees and less than $4,000.
As the Bay Area Reporter previously reported, the suit was first brought earlier this year by attorneys from Judicial Watch on behalf of San Francisco residents Paul Wildes and Reed Sandberg against Breed, gay City Treasurer José Cisneros, City Administrator Carmen Chu, and John Doe.
The supervisors voted to approve the settlement 7-3 for the second and final time at the December 10 meeting. Supervisor Shamann Walton and outgoing Supervisor Dean Preston joined outgoing Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin in voting not to approve the settlement, which will pay $3,250 in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs. The ayes and nays were the same as at the December 3 meeting the supervisors initially voted on the matter.
The suit, filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative group, was the second one brought against the city due to the pilot Guaranteed Income for Trans People, or GIFT, program that Breed established in November 2022. As of December 2023, there were 55 people in the program who received $1,200 a month for 18 months. No further monies have been disbursed since the program quietly ended in September.
Another lawsuit against GIFT, filed last year by the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, is still pending. However, there has been no activity in the case since February, when the Judicial Watch case was filed. It also was directed at city programs aimed at helping artists, pregnant women, and Blacks that the plaintiffs alleged were unconstitutional or violated civil rights laws.
The GIFT program ran afoul of a host of non-discrimination laws, the Judicial Watch suit alleged. The initial complaint was based on the state constitution — specifically Article I, section No. 7 (which ensures equal protection of the laws). The suit alleged this was violated by the program in three ways: on the basis of gender identity, on the basis of sex, and on the basis of race and ethnicity.
"Plaintiffs contend that any expenditure of taxpayer funds or taxpayer financed resources on the GIFT program is illegal under Article 1, section 7 of the California Constitution because the requirement that eligible participants be transgender, nonbinary, gender-nonconforming, or intersex is immediately suspect and presumptively invalid and cannot survive strict scrutiny review," the complaint stated. "Plaintiffs are being and will be irreparably harmed by Defendants' illegal expenditure of taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources on the GIFT program, unless and until Defendants' illegal expenditures are enjoined."
The San Francisco City Attorney's office stated the settlement wouldn't necessarily prevent similar programs from operating.
"This is a narrow settlement that does not prevent San Francisco from creating future programs to support all of our communities, including the trans community," stated Jen Kwart, spokesperson for the office. "We believe this is an appropriate resolution given the inherent costs of continued litigation."
Preston explained at the December 3 Board of Supervisors' meeting why he voted against the settlement — the first in four years he voted not to approve, he said.
"Across this nation, trans people are facing hostile legislation, rhetoric, and hate crimes as the right of trans people to exist and be themselves is increasingly under attack. It is important our city shows leadership on this fundamental civil rights issue," he said.
He said he believes it would "be a mistake" to approve the settlement, citing a directive from the book "On Tyranny" by Timothy D. Snyder not to "obey in advance."
The city should let the courts rule against it, Preston said, rather than presuming they will before the matter is heard.
He conceded, "I recognize the legal terrain is not one of their [the city attorney's office] choosing, and with the current Supreme Court, the legal terrain is hostile to programs to help the most vulnerable."
Outgoing District 9 Supervisor Hillary Ronen said she would vote for the settlement.
After speaking to the city attorney's office, she realized the program was structured in a way that made it likely to lose in court.
"I have no idea why this program was structured in the way it was structured," she said. "I went to law school and studied constitutional law and would not have structured this program in this way. ... We're paying $3,000 to a right-wing organization, and I don't want to pay them a cent more."
Ronen continued that "this is not a weak move."
"I will be supporting this settlement agreement, but in no way, shape or form, Fox News, do I want you to spin my vote in this matter against the trans community," she said, referring to the right-leaning cable network. "We invite any trans person who does not feel comfortable in their own city or their own state to come and move to San Francisco."
Gay District 8 Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, who represents the Castro neighborhood on the board, voted for the settlement.
"Especially in this moment, it is important for us to pick our battles wisely," he stated to the B.A.R. "I am willing to send our city attorneys into fights they may lose, but I am not willing to send them into court when they are almost certain to lose and the most likely result is an award of significant attorneys' fees to a group like Judicial Watch."
The other two gay members of the board — District 6's Matt Dorsey and District 4's Joel Engardio — also voted for the settlement. Dorsey, who worked for 14 years as the city attorney's office's press liaison before moving to a similar role at the San Francisco Police Department, told the B.A.R. December 10 that "a case like the one we're voting to settle today shows why discretion is sometimes the better part of valor."
"It's a prudent settlement that avoids the costs and risks of further litigation, which could include an unfavorable precedent for our community as well as a much higher price tag for taxpayers," he stated.
Dorsey also defended the office's record.
"I spent 14 years on the executive staff of the San Francisco City Attorney's office, which has done more to advance the cause of LGBTQ+ equality than any legal advocacy organization I'm aware of," he stated. "From domestic partnerships and equal benefits to marriage equality to beating back Trump administration efforts to role back access to gender affirming care, they've been a national leader for decades."
Engardio didn't return a request for comment by press time.
The Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club is not happy, though, issuing a blistering statement Wednesday.
"On behalf of our trans, Black, and Indigenous members, and our members of color, we want to thank Supervisors Dean Preston, Aaron Peskin, and Shamann Walton for their votes against bigotry and transphobia," the statement reads, in part. "Now is not the time for a city that calls itself a Trans Sanctuary City to throw the trans community under the bus or shy away from protecting programs that serve them. We need our elected leaders to fight for programs that are meant to lift and stabilize vulnerable communities, especially trans people.
"Unfortunately, the settlement was approved by a majority of supervisors earlier today," the statement continues, referring to Tuesday's vote. "We thank all of the supervisors who voted no on this proposed settlement despite the pressure to approve it. And while we are disappointed with the way this settlement turned out, we hope that others will fight — in both words and actions — for our trans community as we face down yet another precarious four years under [U.S. President-elect] Donald Trump."
The B.A.R. called Judicial Watch for comment for this report; the unnamed person who answered the phone tried to patch the B.A.R. to the person who could provide comment, but due to an error, the transfer didn't work. The person on the phone explained that the person who could provide comment didn't have an email they could be reached at, and that she could not leave some other kind of written message for her. The person on the phone advised the paper to call back December 6.
Updated, 12/5/24: This article has been updated with comments from Supervisor Rafael Mandelman.
Updated, 12/10/24: This article has been updated with comments from Supervisor Matt Dorsey and on the final vote at the Board of Supervisors.
Never miss a story! Keep up to date on the latest news, arts, politics, entertainment, and nightlife.
Sign up for the Bay Area Reporter's free weekday email newsletter. You'll receive our newsletters and special offers from our community partners.
Support California's largest LGBTQ newsroom. Your one-time, monthly, or annual contribution advocates for LGBTQ communities. Amplify a trusted voice providing news, information, and cultural coverage to all members of our community, regardless of their ability to pay -- Donate today!