The court concludes plaintiffs’ evidence forecasting excessive heat for the upcoming weeks and detailing the risks of heat-related deaths and illnesses is sufficient to show that irreparable harm will result in the absence of injunctive relief,” Nunley wrote in his order.

Last year, he ordered similar temporary restraining orders against the city to halt encampment sweeps during scorching temperatures that lasted nearly two months.

The complaint includes details from a sweep in mid July, when authorities removed about 30 people from a tree-lined street in the city’s midtown. The temperature that day was 91F, and the sweep came just before a multi-day stretch of triple-digit temperatures, according to the AP.

The city did not offer any housing to the people kicked out of their temporary shelters, the Sacramento Bee reported.

So it’s a temporary ban on forcing anyone to move under the possibility the victim will die of heat stroke if they do. But after the ban is lifted, they’ll still be shuffled around with nowhere to actually go.

They’ll just keep struggling to live out of cars and tents (if they have those) in dangerous weather conditions because, from personal experience, the grand majority of people seem to think building shelters is the thing that attracts homeless people and thus, if your city doesn’t have shelters, nobody will be homeless.

@OrphanCrushingMachine