Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice v. City of Fontana

Human Rights Research Center

10 minutes ago

10 min read

September 16, 2026

Introduction

The City of Fontana in the state of California enacted two ordinances that directly affected street vendors in the city. These new ordinances disproportionately affected individuals in the immigrant and low-income street vendor communities. The Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice (the coalition) brought suit against the City of Fontana and 4LEAF Inc., arguing that these ordinances violate the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as California law.

What is an Ordinance?

An ordinance is a law created by a local government. This can be through a city council or a board of supervisors. Ordinances are important and generally dictate local law. Cities all across the United States enact their own ordinances to tackle local issues. However, the City of Fontana enacted two ordinances that the coalition argues are in violation of both state and federal law.

Ordinance No. 1789 and Subsequent Amendments

The first ordinance—Ordinance No. 1789—was enacted by the City of Fontana in 2019. The purpose of the ordinance is to regulate sidewalk vendors for the sake of “public safety.” First, the ordinance requires that each vendor obtain a sidewalk vending permit from the city’s Business License Department before any vending activities take place. The ordinance also requires that, “For stationary sidewalk vendors, a public liability policy, including products liability insurance, issued by an insurance company approved by the City with limits of $1,000,000.00 each person, $2,000,000.00 each occurrence for personal and $1,000,000.00 each occurrence for property damage.“ The ordinance also requires LiveScan background checks, requires a waiver that acknowledges the use of public property is at the vendor’s “own risk”, and states that “any peace officer or code enforcement officer is authorized to seize as evidence any item used in the commission of a violation of any provision of this Chapter”.

However, California’s Street Vendor Business Protection Act SB 635—which came into effect on January 1st, 2026—amended government Code § 51038, making it illegal to require a street vendor to complete a LiveScan, fingerprints, or a background check as a part of an application. As such, the City of Fontana later adopted Ordinance No. 1981 to comply with the changes in the state law.

Ordinance No. 1925

Ordinance No. 1925 gives impoundment authorization to “Any City official, including a code compliance officer or inspector, police officer, firefighter, fire prevention specialist, or examiner.” The most controversial portion of the ordinance is the expansion of the Fontana Municipal Code § 1-14. The expansion makes it unlawful to obstruct, impede, or interfere with any city official, including a code compliance officer, which includes employees of 4LEAF Inc. An individual could face jail time and/or a $1,000 fine.

4LEAF, Inc.

4LEAF, Inc. provides a wide array of services, including “code enforcement.” On September 21, 2023, the City of Fontana approved $598,224 for a six-month contract with 4LEAF for “vendor enforcement” services. The city is granting power to a private company to enforce their ordinances on citizens in the city. The coalition argues that 4LEAF acted under the color of state law, and its enforcement practices resulted in constitutional violations.

First Amendment

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the freedom of speech. It states that, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” The First Amendment protects various fundamental freedoms, but the importance here is that the Free Speech Clause generally prohibits the government from enacting laws that impermissibly restrict protected forms of expression.

The coalition first argues that Ordinance No. 1925 violates the First Amendment, relying primarily on City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987). In Hill, the City of Houston enacted an ordinance that makes it unlawful to interrupt a police officer in the performance of his or her duties. The Court stated that “municipal ordinance that makes it unlawful to interrupt a police officer in the performance of his duty is substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid on its face under the First Amendment.” The Coalition argues that Ordinance No. 1925 is akin to the ordinance in Hill, particularly with the language of “...interfere in any way.” This language in particular is too restrictive. The Coalition argues that, “Here, by forbidding sidewalk vendors (as well as others) from “obstruct[ing], imped[ing], threat[ing], . . . intimidat[ing] or interfer[ing] in any way” with an official’s duties, the EOC criminalizes a broad swath of constitutionally protected conduct under the First Amendment.“

Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984) established that “a ‘seizure’ of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests.“ Here, the meaningful interference would be the City of Fontana, or 4LEAF Inc. taking a street vendor’s property. The coalition argues that “Courts, for example, have repeatedly blocked local governments’ ability to conduct civil impoundments of homeless persons’ property and, under the rubric of the “community caretaking doctrine“, have similarly restricted local government’s ability to impound vehicles after their driver is arrested for non-criminal violations.” The community caretaking doctrine allows for the warrantless seizure of evidence that police find while fulfilling their community caretaker role. An impoundment of a street vendor’s property constitutes a seizure, but a seizure alone does not establish a constitutional violation. The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable” seizures. The coalition argues that Fontana’s warrantless confiscation, and in some instances destruction, of vendors’ property is unreasonable.

Fourteenth Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that, “.... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” An important element of the Fourteenth Amendment is what is known as “due process.” Due process comes in two forms, substantive and procedural due process. Substantive due process protects certain rights from governmental interference regardless of the procedures used. Procedural due process asks whether the government has provided constitutionally adequate procedures before or after depriving someone of a protected life, liberty, or property interest.

First, the coalition argues that Ordinance 1925 violates the Fourteenth Amendment because Ordinance 1925 enables 4LEAF, Inc. or the City of Fontana to seize, destroy, and take an individual’s property without any form of procedural due process. A street vendor does not get their voice heard before the seizure of their property, and thus the Coalition argues it violates the Fourteenth Amendment because there is no meaningful process granted to the street vendors before the seizure takes place. The coalition states that, “Unconstrained by significant City oversight, 4LEAF agents have since conducted a lawless campaign to harass, intimidate, and ultimately coerce vendors to abandon their rights and leave the City. Repeatedly, 4LEAF agents confiscate vendors’ property without giving vendors any notice or an opportunity to be heard. Through its unlawful enactments and its agents’ implementation thereof, the City has succeeded in expelling—or at least greatly restricting, through intimidation—a majority of its vending population.“

Additionally, the coalition argues that the appeal process in the event a street vendor has their property seized, is inadequate. The coalition states, “Even if an officer does inform a vendor of her ability to request an administrative hearing, pursuing that option would provide little or no benefit. Under Ord. 1925, § 15-829(g), “if successful in [the] appeal,” a vendor only (i) receives back from the City their remaining goods or equipment “excluding any items . . . immediately disposed of,” and (ii) is excused from the City’s impound fee. But a vendor must pay the City’s “appeal fee” of $345 even to initiate such a hearing. Moreover, the lengthy steps required thereafter would likely delay the appeal’s resolution well beyond 60 days.”

SB 946

California enacted SB 946 that establishes statewide limits on local regulations. What is important here is that it does not prevent cities from regulating street vendors altogether, and the City of Fontana can regulate street vendors. However, it limits what regulations can be in place, as they have to be in accordance with SB 946. SB 946 states:

51038(c): A local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, adopt additional requirements regulating the time, place, and manner of sidewalk vending if the requirements are directly related to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns....

The coalition's argument is that SB 946 preempts the City of Fontana’s ordinances, and the ordinances are in conflict with established state law. The coalition cites the case of Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 4 Cal. 4th 893, 897, in which the California Supreme Court held that when “local legislation conflicts with state law, it is preempted by such law and is void.” The City of Fontana’s ordinances, according to the Coalition, are not “directly related” to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns, which is what SB 946 allows cities to regulate in regards to street vendors.

Additionally, SB 946 establishes permissible penalties for violations of local sidewalk vending programs for individuals, and the coalition argues that the City of Fontana cannot add impoundment or confiscation as an additional punishment. SB 946 states:

51039.

(a)(1) A violation of a local authority's sidewalk vending program that complies with Section 51038 is punishable only by the following:

(A) An administrative fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation.

(B) An administrative fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second violation within one year of the first violation.

(C) An administrative fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for each additional violation within one year of the first violation.

Where The Case is at Now

In October 2025, the City of Fontana filed a motion to dismiss the suit and argued that the coalition had no standing to sue them. In a KVCR news article, the City states that the ordinances are in the interest of public health, and that “Since October 2023, the City has made more than 1,500 outreach contacts with vendors, has not issued a single citation, and helped 14 vendors become fully licensed to operate legally.” The City further notes that “[w]e will continue to stand by this balanced approach and remain focused on helping vendors succeed while keeping our community healthy and safe.”

The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, and the plaintiffs amended their complaint. The coalition moved for a preliminary injunction on July 1st, 2026. The preliminary injunction calls for the City of Fontana to temporarily suspend the enforcement and confiscation/impoundment of vendors’ property and to suspend the enforcement of the new permit requirements for street vendors. The case itself remains ongoing. A hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction was held on August 14th, 2026. The court ordered both parties to submit supplemental briefs and scheduled the hearing for September 11th, 2026.

Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice v. City of Fontana demonstrates why it is important to protect constitutional and human rights at a local level. Ordinances can often be overlooked or appear administrative in nature, but they have real and consequential impacts on individuals. In this case, the ordinances impact members of the low-income or immigrant community. The Constitution of the United States is the nation's supreme law and provides protections to safeguard that governmental power is exercised fairly and consistently.

Glossary

Community Caretaking Doctrine: Allows for warrantless seizure of evidence that police find while fulfilling their community caretaker role, which is unrelated to the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence of criminal activity.
Complaint: The pleading that starts a case. Essentially, it is a document that sets forth a jurisdictional basis for the court’s power, the plaintiff’s cause of action, and a demand for judicial relief.
Defendant: In criminal cases, the defendant is the party accused of the crime. In civil cases, the defendant is the party that is being sued by the plaintiff.
First Amendment: The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.
Fourteenth Amendment: The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contains several notable rights and protections, such as applying due process and equal protection to State law. It also addresses citizenship, state action, privacy rights, apportionment, disqualification for rebellion, debt, and the enforcement clause, among other rights
Fourth Amendment: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. It protects against arbitrary arrests and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law.
Impoundment: Where the court or police take custody of personal property.
LiveScan: Refers to the technology and technique used by law enforcement agencies and private facilities to capture fingerprints and/or palm prints electronically.
Motion to Dismiss: A formal request for a court to dismiss a case, the reasons for which greatly vary.
Ordinance: A law or decree by a municipality.
Plaintiff: A person or group that starts a lawsuit in court by filing a complaint against the defendant or the respondent.
Seizure: When the government or its agent removes property from an individual's possession following unlawful activity or to satisfy a judgement entered by the court.
Senate Bill: A proposed piece of legislation which is introduced and then sponsored by a member of the Senate.
State Supreme Court: The highest court in the state judiciary within the United States.
Supreme Court: The highest court within a jurisdiction of the United States.
United States Constitution: The supreme law of the United States and defines the foundational structure of the federal government.

References

City of Fontana. (n.d.-a). Fontana Legistar. https://fontana.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=F7F81B40-01A2-4DF5-85C7-076B26ED87F1&ID =1118266&M=M
City of Fontana. (n.d.-b). Fontana Legistar. https://fontana.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=12342918&GUID=C67DA94E-CAEC-4D54-B46D-2B93DD066399
City of houston v. hill | 482 U.S. 451 (1987) | justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. (n.d.-a). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/451/
Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. publiccounsel. (n.d.). https://publiccounsel.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025-08-11-FONTANA-Complaint.pdf
For publication United States Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit . (n.d.-b). https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/09/05/11-56253.pdf
Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice v. city of Fontana: Public counsel: Public interest law. Public Counsel | Public Interest Law. (2026, July 9). https://publiccounsel.org/our-cases/icij-v-city-of-fontana/
Municode Library. (n.d.-a). https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=1254152
Municode Library. (n.d.-b). https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=944172
Public Counsel. (n.d.). https://publiccounsel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/2026.02.13-65-Second-Amended-Complaint.pdf
SB 635: Food Vendors and facilities: Enforcement activities.: Digital Democracy. Home - Digital Democracy. (n.d.-a). https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb635
SB 946: Sidewalk Vendors.: Digital Democracy. Home - Digital Democracy. (n.d.-b). https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_201720180sb946
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. city of Los Angeles (1993) :: :: Supreme Court of California decisions :: California case law :: California law :: U.S. law :: Justia. (n.d.-c). https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/4/893.html
Street vendors Sue City of Fontana to overturn unlawful and unconstitutional vending rules: Public counsel: Public interest law. Public Counsel | Public Interest Law. (2025, September 3). https://publiccounsel.org/press-releases/street-vendors-sue-city-of-fontana-to-overturn-unlawful-and-unconstitutional-vending-rules-2/
U.S. Constitution - Fifth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | congress.gov | Library of Congress. (n.d.-d). https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/
U.S. Constitution - First Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | congress.gov | Library of Congress. (n.d.-e). https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | congress.gov | Library of Congress. (n.d.-f). https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
U.S. Constitution - Fourth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | congress.gov | Library of Congress. (n.d.-g). https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/
Victoria, A. (2025, November 27). Fontana asks federal judge to dismiss lawsuit over street vending rules. KVCR News. https://www.kvcrnews.org/local-news/2025-11-26/fontana-asks-federal-judge-to-dismiss-lawsuit-over-street-vending-rules

HRRC accepts NO funding from governments for our research or campaigns. At every step of the way, our impact is made possible because of people like YOU. Make your contribution now!