Lede
Los Angeles County supervisors voted 4‑1 on Oct. 7 to direct county counsel to prepare a proclamation of a local emergency for federal immigration enforcement actions and place the draft on the board agenda for Oct. 14, after a contentious debate over whether an emergency declaration is necessary and what tenant protections the county can legally adopt.

Nut graf
County counsel told the board that a binding eviction moratorium would be enforced as an affirmative defense — meaning tenants must assert the defense in court — and that moratoria the courts have upheld traditionally followed a declared local emergency and included procedural protections for landlords. Supporters of a declaration said a formal local emergency would broaden the county’s tools, expedite action and strengthen appeals for state or philanthropic help; opponents warned a moratorium could shift costs to small landlords and urged more rental‑assistance funding instead.

Body
Supervisor Lindsey Horvath introduced the measure after weeks of community activism and spikes in arrests and raids that county officials said had destabilized neighborhoods and local businesses. “Families are now afraid to go to work, to attend school, or even to buy groceries,” Horvath said in opening remarks. She moved that county counsel prepare a proclamation of local emergency for federal immigration actions and place it on the Oct. 14 agenda.

County counsel deputy Pete Bollinger summarized the law and the county’s options. He explained that an eviction moratorium is typically implemented as an “affirmative defense” a tenant raises if a landlord files an eviction action, and that courts have tended to uphold moratoria enacted during declared emergencies when they are temporary, narrowly tailored and provide landlords a process to challenge a tenant’s claimed hardship. Bollinger cited California Government Code §8558(c) and said the county had not yet declared a local emergency tied to immigration enforcement.

Departmental and advocacy witnesses were split on tactics. DCBA Director Rafael Carvajal and County CEO staff described practical alternatives: more rental relief funding, increased investment in tenants’ right‑to‑counsel and outreach. LACOE Immigrant Relations Coordinator Frederick Ruiz and Office of Immigrant Affairs director Rigo Reyes outlined education, “know‑your‑rights” materials and district outreach that already were under way for students and families.

Supporters, including dozens of immigrant‑rights advocates and several local organizations during public comment, urged immediate action. “This is a moment of crisis,” said Mateo Gil of East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice. Opponents, including representatives of landlord groups, warned that a broad moratorium could force small property owners to shoulder unpaid rent and push them out of the program that houses low‑income tenants.

After debate the board approved Horvath’s motion to have county counsel draft a proclamation setting out the legal basis for a local emergency; the action passed 4‑1 (Supervisor Barter cast the lone no vote). Supervisors also asked staff to explore rental assistance and other measures in parallel; several supervisors requested detailed funding options and to ask philanthropic partners — including the California Community Foundation — about emergency cash aid.

Ending
The board’s vote does not enact an eviction moratorium; it instructs county counsel to prepare a local emergency proclamation for the board’s consideration on Oct. 14. County counsel told the board that any moratorium would need to be designed to balance tenant protections with landlords’ due‑process rights and include procedures for notice and verification.