There is no single new homeless law in California. Starting in 2024, the state’s approach shifted through four connected changes: the CARE Act, which puts a civil court in charge of treatment plans for people with severe untreated mental illness; Senate Bill 43, which broadened who can be placed under involuntary conservatorship; Proposition 1, a $6.38 billion bond measure for behavioral health facilities and housing; and a combination of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Grants Pass decision and Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-1-24, which together cleared the way for more aggressive encampment removals. The direction is a sharper turn toward intervention and enforcement than California had taken in decades.
The CARE Act and Court-Ordered Treatment
The Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment Act creates a civil court process meant to reach people with severe, untreated mental illness before they cycle through emergency rooms, jails, or the street. A judge oversees a CARE Plan, which can include behavioral health treatment, stabilization medications, housing support, and other services tailored to the individual.1California Legislative Information. California Welfare and Institutions Code Division 5, Part 8, Chapter 1 Plans last up to 12 months and can be extended once for another 12.2California Health and Human Services Agency. CARE Act Overview The court holds periodic hearings to check both the participant’s progress and whether the county is actually delivering the services it was ordered to provide.
The first seven counties launched CARE Court in October 2023. All 58 counties had to go live by December 1, 2024, with a hard deadline of December 1, 2025 for any county granted an emergency extension.1California Legislative Information. California Welfare and Institutions Code Division 5, Part 8, Chapter 1 As of mid-2025, over 2,000 petitions had been filed statewide and more than 3,300 people had been petitioned or otherwise engaged with county behavioral health through the program.3California Health and Human Services Agency. CARE Act Implementation Update July 2025
Who Can Be Ordered Into CARE
Eligibility is narrow, and every criterion must be met. The person must be 18 or older and must have a diagnosis of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder, another psychotic disorder, or bipolar I disorder with psychotic features. Psychosis from a medical condition like traumatic brain injury, dementia, or autism does not qualify, and neither does a substance use disorder on its own. The person must not already be stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment. They must meet at least one risk threshold: either they are unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision and are substantially deteriorating, or they need services to prevent a relapse that would likely result in grave disability or serious harm. A CARE Plan has to be the least restrictive alternative necessary for recovery, and the person must be likely to benefit from participation.4California Legislative Information. California Welfare and Institutions Code 5972
Petitions can come from family members, first responders, behavioral health professionals, and hospital directors, among others. If the court finds the petition credible, it appoints a lawyer and a voluntary supporter for the person and orders a clinical evaluation. The court only moves forward with a plan if that evaluation confirms every criterion.5California Courts Newsroom. Eligibility under the CARE Act The person can accept the plan voluntarily through a CARE Agreement or have it imposed as a CARE Plan.
SB 43 and the Broader Conservatorship Standard
Senate Bill 43 updated California’s conservatorship laws for the first time in over 50 years by widening the definition of “gravely disabled” under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, which governs involuntary psychiatric holds and conservatorships.6Office of the Governor of California. Modernizing Conservatorship Law to Better Help and Protect Californians Most in Need of Care
Before SB 43, a person could be found gravely disabled only if a mental health disorder left them unable to provide for their own food, clothing, or shelter. That old standard excluded people whose primary problem was addiction rather than a diagnosed mental illness. SB 43 changed it in two ways. It added severe substance use disorders and co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders as qualifying conditions, and it expanded the definition beyond food, clothing, and shelter to also cover an inability to provide for personal safety or necessary medical care.7LegiScan. California Senate Bill 43 – Behavioral Health
The law took effect on January 1, 2024, but counties could pass a resolution deferring implementation until January 1, 2026.8California Department of Health Care Services. Senate Bill 43 Changes to Gravely Disabled Behavioral Health FAQs That deferral window has now closed, so every county must apply the broader definition. More people can now be placed on involuntary holds and, in the most severe cases, under LPS conservatorships, which carry far greater restrictions on personal liberty than a CARE Plan.
Proposition 1 and the Money Behind the Beds
Court-ordered treatment accomplishes little if there are no beds, no clinics, and no housing to receive people. Proposition 1, which California voters narrowly approved in March 2024, authorized $6.38 billion in general obligation bonds to fill that gap. Roughly $4.4 billion goes toward building treatment facilities for mental health care and substance use recovery. About $2 billion funds converting existing buildings into housing and constructing new units.9California Legislative Analyst’s Office. Proposition 1 – Authorizes Bonds to Build Mental Health Treatment Facilities and Housing
Proposition 1 also changed how counties use their existing behavioral health tax revenue. Beginning in 2026, counties must dedicate 30 percent of those funds to housing interventions, with half of that amount reserved for people experiencing chronic homelessness. Counties can spend that money on rental subsidies, operating subsidies for supportive housing, family housing, and shared housing, with up to 25 percent available for building new units.
Encampment Enforcement After Grants Pass
For years, federal court decisions limited what California cities could do about homeless encampments. The Ninth Circuit’s 2019 ruling in Martin v. City of Boise held that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment prevents a city from punishing someone for sleeping outside when no shelter bed is available.10United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Martin v City of Boise A later Ninth Circuit decision in Johnson v. City of Grants Pass extended that reasoning to civil penalties and fines. Together, those rulings meant California cities could not meaningfully enforce anti-camping ordinances unless they could show enough shelter space for everyone displaced.
That constraint disappeared on June 28, 2024, when the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit in a 6-3 decision. The Court held that enforcing generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.11Supreme Court of the United States. City of Grants Pass v Johnson The majority drew a line between punishing someone for their status as a homeless person, which remains unconstitutional, and enforcing conduct-based rules about where and how people can camp, which does not. Cities no longer need to prove they have enough shelter beds before enforcing camping ordinances.
The decision does not require any city to crack down on encampments. It removes the federal constitutional barrier that had blocked enforcement. Each local government still decides whether and how aggressively to enforce its own camping rules, and any ordinance can still be challenged under the California Constitution or other legal theories.
Executive Order N-1-24 and State Agency Removals
Less than a month after Grants Pass, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-1-24 on July 25, 2024, directing all state agencies and departments under his authority to begin addressing encampments on state-owned property.12Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. Governor Newsom Orders State Agencies to Address Encampments in Their Communities With Urgency and Dignity The order does not apply directly to cities or counties, but it sets expectations and puts pressure on local governments to follow suit.
State agencies must follow a process modeled on Caltrans’s existing encampment policy. Before any removal, an agency has to assess whether the encampment poses an immediate threat to life, health, safety, or infrastructure serious enough to qualify as an emergency. If no emergency exists, the agency must post a written notice to vacate at least 48 hours before removal begins; in an emergency, it must give as much advance notice as is reasonable. Agencies must contact service providers to offer outreach and support to the people living at the site. Personal belongings collected during a removal that are not health or safety hazards must be labeled and stored for at least 60 days.13Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. Executive Order N-1-24
The executive order sets a floor for state agencies, not a ceiling for anyone else. Local governments writing their own encampment ordinances after Grants Pass can adopt stricter or more lenient procedures. The combination of the Supreme Court clearing the legal path and the governor publicly ordering state agencies to act has already accelerated encampment removals across the state.