Judicial Watch Sues San Francisco Over Guaranteed Income Program for Transgenders

Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against San Francisco on Tuesday, suing the city over their Guaranteed Income for Trans People (GIFT) program because of discrimination.

The GIFT program dates back to November 2022. That month, San Francisco Mayor London Breed announced that they would be launching a new 18-month guaranteed income program for low-income transgender, nonbinary, gender nonconforming, and intersex residents in the city. Breed said that the program would specifically target transgender people due to 29% of the demographic living under the poverty line and issues they have in getting full-time employment.

In total, GIFT would give $1,200 a month to 55 transgender, nonbinary, gender nonconforming, or intersex residents over an 18 month span, starting in January 2023. In addition, enrollment prioritization would be of transgender people who are also Black, Indigenous, or People of Color, experiencing homelessness, living with disabilities and chronic illnesses, youth and elders, monolingual Spanish-speakers, and those who are legally vulnerable. While GIFT would have no strings attached, those wishing to apply have to be over the age of 18, live in San Francisco, and have a monthly income under $600. All applicants also must show a photo ID, prove their residence and income, and have to fill out a survey every three months until the program ends in June 2024.

However, from the start of GIFT in January 2023, the program had been constantly under legal fire. Throughout 2023, multiple groups went after GIFT and other guaranteed income programs in the city. However, while there were some successes, GIFT managed to stay afloat. In October 2023, Judicial Watch opened a records request for the release of records from the City of San Francisco showing the city prioritized tax money for black and Latino transgenders for the GIFT program. With records now open, a lawsuit soon became inevitable. This led to Judicial Watch filing a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court on Tuesday challenging the GIFT program on behalf of three taxpayers.

According to the suit, GIFT violates the Equal Protection clause of the California constitution by discriminating based on gender identity, gender, and race. According to Judicial Watch, they want not only the court to find that GIFT violates the Equal Protection clause, but for a permanent injunction preventing the city from paying out GIFT funds.

“The transgender extremists running San Francisco are illegally using taxpayer money to hand out free cash to transgender individuals based on race and sex in blatant violation of the state’s constitution,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a statement.

The transgender extremists running San Francisco are illegally using taxpayer money to hand out free cash to transgender individuals based on race and sex in blatant violation of the state’s constitution. @JudicialWatch just filed a taxpayer lawsuit to try to put a stop to it.… https://t.co/HL6bCDJT0Z

— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) January 30, 2024

As Judicial Watch has a long history of victories over Equal Protection and forced quota laws before, such as being point in overturning the gender based quota board law in May 2022, the opponents defending the GIFT program now find themselves in an uphill battle.

“San Francisco really did not want this headache of a case because they have gone through so many surrounding their programs already,” Luis Calderon, a lawyer who has dealt with cases involving the Equal Protection clause in the past, told the Globe. “GIFT has a lot of problems with it and really has a narrow demographic in which people can get money. Objectively, it is just giving money to very poor people with no strings attached. But we don’t know what they are spending it on. Even a basic breakdown on things like food, rent, and other things would have put a lot of people at ease. But that isn’t there, and the fact that San Francisco targeted who to give it to, in a city where so many people are in need of help, really speaks volumes of them prioritizing their political views over wanting to help.”

“If San Francisco really was fair and they still wanted to give UBI out, then it should have been a lottery system. Do you know how many homeless families could have used that? Or single adults needing that extra oomph to get their own place? Or maybe don’t even do UBI and put those funds towards helping San Franciscans getting permanent housing and jobs.

“JW has had a long history in nailing governments in cases like these, and San Francisco now has to face the fact they are going to be fighting against them in court. They’re worried for sure.”

More on the lawsuit, including the reaction from city leaders, will likely come out soon.