U.S. Supreme Court Denies Huntington Beach’s Appeal in Fight for Local Control Over Housing Mandates

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that rejects the City of Huntington Beach’s constitutional challenge to California’s aggressive state housing laws, delivering yet another blow to local control in the conservative Orange County enclave.

The high court’s denial leaves intact lower federal court decisions dismissing the city’s federal lawsuit, which argued that as a charter city, Huntington Beach retains autonomy from Sacramento’s top-down rezoning mandates. The city must now face the consequences in state court, where a December 19, 2025, San Diego Superior Court order requires it to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days — roughly by mid-April to zone for 13,368 new homes— or see its authority to approve or deny local land-use changes severely restricted. 

As California Globe has extensively documented for years, this battle is nothing new. In 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom singled out Huntington Beach for a lawsuit over its alleged failure to meet “affordable housing” quotas under state law — even as his own home county of Marin enjoyed a special moratorium exempting it from similar requirements until 2028. 

The state’s March 9, 2023, lawsuit in state court accused the city of dragging its feet on its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Huntington Beach responded with a federal suit contending the mandates unconstitutionally infringe on charter city powers. A U.S. District Court dismissed the federal case, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel unanimously affirmed that dismissal, and the appeals court later denied en banc rehearing. 

Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Newsom celebrated the court’s dismissal as a “major win.” 

Bonta wasted no time gloating on Monday: “Huntington Beach took its fight to the highest court in the country — and lost. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court officially declined to step in, leaving no doubt that the City must comply with our state housing laws. After years of meritless resistance that has wasted taxpayer dollars, Huntington Beach can no longer claim that the U.S. Constitution is on its side. It is not.” 

Gov. Newsom piled on: “City officials can’t use the First Amendment as an excuse to violate state housing law. The Huntington Beach officials who wasted taxpayer dollars on this embarrassing approach rather than doing their jobs ought to be ashamed of themselves. Huntington Beach deserves better.” 

Huntington Beach Mayor Casey McKeon pushed back, vowing continued resistance: “The voters of Huntington Beach elected us to defend our local control over municipal affairs, especially housing, and that’s what we will continue to do relentlessly. Even though this path has ended, other paths will always exist for us to continue to rigorously fight to defend the Huntington Beach residents’ local control.” 

The city has repeatedly clashed with Sacramento on issues of local sovereignty. California Globe previously reported Huntington Beach’s unsuccessful legal challenge to the state’s sanctuary laws and the California Supreme Court’s recent final blow to the city’s voter ID measure. City Attorney Michael Gates — now a declared GOP candidate for state Attorney General — has been at the forefront of these fights for resident-backed policies.

This latest Supreme Court snub underscores a clear pattern: progressive state leaders in Sacramento demand compliance from red-leaning charter cities like Huntington Beach while shielding favored coastal enclaves from the same rules. Regulatory barriers, not local resistance, are the real drivers of California’s housing crisis — yet Newsom and Bonta continue their selective enforcement crusade.

Huntington Beach officials maintain they will explore every available legal and political avenue to protect residents from unfettered state mandates that prioritize Sacramento’s agenda over local priorities. The fight for local control is far from over, according to city officials.