Cities and Counties as Progressive Plaintiffs: San Francisco’s Model

Every day, in communities across the country, residents, consumers, workers, and the environment are subjected to unlawful conduct by public and private actors. Litigation challenging these pernicious practices has most visibly been led by private lawyers, non-profits, and state attorneys general. But local governments have also been an important part of the picture—a mighty but often untapped engine of progressive lawyering capable of redressing harms on multiple levels.

This work has always mattered, but it is more important now than ever. In recent years, the federal government has largely abdicated its role in enforcing consumer, civil rights, worker, and environmental protection laws. Local governments are well situated to help fill the resulting enforcement gap, and to respond to mounting lawlessness on the part of the federal government itself. They are also an essential training ground for the next generation of government lawyers. San Francisco’s decades-long affirmative practice illustrates how local government can act as a progressive plaintiff, enforcing consumer protection laws, responding to unlawful and unconstitutional federal action, and modeling reflective and nimble lawyering to secure practical and meaningful remedies.

The first essay in this two-part collection describes San Francisco’s current affirmative practice and the tools the City uses to hold both private companies and the federal government accountable to the people. The second essay details San Francisco’s longstanding partnership with Yale Law School—one of many capacity-enhancing strategies that has enabled the City to keep up with the demands of resource-intensive affirmative work. Together, the essays offer a potential path for other law schools and local governments seeking to establish clinics, externships, and other partnerships that can help law schools and public law offices to meet this moment and fulfill their potential as progressive plaintiffs.

Table of Contents Show

Introduction

In the legal community, the nature, breadth, and scope of the work of local government lawyers does not receive the same attention as that of federal or state government lawyers. Local law offices have significant ability to bring cases that advocate for the interests of their jurisdictions and protect consumers, workers, tenants, and the environment. But not all of them have used it to full advantage, and many law students and practicing lawyers are unaware of how much local law offices can accomplish. Local government litigation is commonly associated with defensive actions—defending cities and counties from claims sounding in tort, property damage, and civil rights. Yet, as Kathleen Morris has argued in her foundational work on affirmative litigation by local governments, the nature of cities and counties make them well situated to pursue broad and meaningful remedies for statutory and constitutional violations.[2]

Local government is central to the lives of all residents. Offices like the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office are tasked with working with policymakers to keep communities safe, provide health care and social services, administer free and fair elections, maintain basic infrastructure like parks, libraries, transportation, water and sewer systems, support local economies, and more. Local governments have historically been laboratories for cutting-edge public sector innovation and the expansion of civil rights, with municipal law offices leading that work. One form of innovation happens when local governments bring affirmative cases for the benefit of their residents and of the local government entities themselves. San Francisco has long pursued an affirmative civil enforcement litigation practice to defend the rights of residents as consumers, workers, and tenants, using the City Attorney’s authority to bring statewide lawsuits on behalf of the People of California against companies engaged in unlawful and deceptive business practices, and actions to abate public nuisances.

This essay describes how San Francisco has deployed its limited resources to cover even more ground in recent years, as federal civil law enforcement and regulation has diminished substantially and private enforcement is increasingly constrained by arbitration clauses and class-action bans. At the same time, attacks on San Francisco from the federal government—threats to funding, unlawful grant conditions, and other overreaches—have forced the City to file multiple suits against the federal government to defend the rule of law, protect city policies, laws, and funding, and safeguard the interests and rights of the most vulnerable communities.[3] To do so, San Francisco has employed a number of strategies to expand its capacity: partnering with other jurisdictions, strategically deploying outside counsel, relying on measures other than litigation, and using law students as force multipliers.       

This is a particularly critical moment in American history for cities and counties to exercise and protect their power. Lawyers working for state and local governments are uniquely situated to help fill the federal enforcement gap by litigating consumer, worker, civil rights and environment-related matters that the federal government has abandoned.[4] And they can fight to protect their jurisdictions, their residents, and their Congressionally-appropriated funding from federal overreach.[5]  Facing severe threats to their funding, their authority, and their residents’ rights and well-being, progressive cities and counties often have no choice.[6]

I. Consumer Protection

The San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, like many city attorney and county counsel offices, has a variety of tools available to protect the public interest and finances through affirmative litigation. California’s Unfair Competition Law is one powerful tool that allows the Office (and other public offices in the state) to bring lawsuits on behalf of the People of the State of California against businesses that engage in unfair, unlawful, or deceptive business practices.[7] Using this power, the Office can hold defendants accountable for violating local, state, and even federal laws and regulations, and can obtain injunctive relief, restitution for victims, and civil penalties to support future consumer protection work.

Lawsuits brought in the exercise of these powers have made a substantial impact on the lives of San Franciscans and Californians, and in some cases, people across the country. These cases help fill enforcement gaps created when federal enforcement agencies shift priorities or abandon cases, or when the private bar cannot make a broader impact due to clients bound by arbitration clauses, class action bans, or other legal barriers. For example, in 2023, San Francisco brought a consumer protection enforcement action against a gift card manufacturer alleging that the company used packaging that made the cards susceptible to rampant “card draining” and unauthorized transactions.[8] And after San Francisco sued Uber and Lyft in 2020 for misclassifying drivers in violation of California law[9]—a case workers had limitations bringing directly due to arbitration clauses—the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office created a dedicated worker protection team to combat systemic labor abuses such as wage theft and employee misclassification.[10] This team has recovered tens of millions of dollars for workers and inspired cities and counties around California to create their own dedicated worker protection teams.

Needless to say, San Francisco is not afraid to take on seemingly untouchable industries. As a result of a case the City filed in 2024, at least ten websites have already been shut down that used Artificial Intelligence to create nude images of real people, including minors, without their consent.[11] In 2026, together with the California Attorney General’s Office, San Francisco took critical steps toward curbing the illegal manufacture and use of 3D-printed “ghost guns” in California by suing Gatalog, a group of websites and people that pose a serious public safety threat by unlawfully distributing codes into California to print dangerous and untraceable firearms.[12] 

II. Code Enforcement and Public Nuisance

Local law offices that do not view themselves as having a robust affirmative docket may well already be doing affirmative litigation through code enforcement matters, which address a wide variety of local and state law issues. These include violations of municipal building, housing, police, planning, and health codes; unlawful and unfair business practices; gun violence restraining orders; illegal dumping and gambling; and drug and red light abatement. These code enforcement matters tend to be more neighborhood- and community-based. For example, in 2024, San Francisco’s Code Enforcement team secured over $2.5 million in three separate court victories against landlords who created serious health and safety issues for the tenants living at their properties.[13] The team also successfully shut down numerous gambling and drug dens that fronted as convenience stores,[14] as well as illegal nightclubs[15] and cannabis grow house operations.[16] It regularly investigates and civilly prosecutes fraudulent ownership of San Francisco’s precious below market-rate housing units.[17] This code enforcement work is critical for the health and safety of communities and allows for remedies that are often unavailable to the neighbors and community members harmed.

San Francisco has also used its authority to bring suits to abate public nuisances to hold accountable notorious—and large—wrongdoers, including lead paint companies,[18] payday lenders,[19] and the tobacco industry.[20] The City has at times brought these actions in collaboration with state attorneys general or other enforcement agencies. Its ongoing case against major oil companies was one of the first government efforts to seek to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for deceiving the public about the known harms caused by greenhouse gas emissions.[21] In 2023, San Francisco won a bellwether trial in a national, multi-plaintiff proceeding challenging opioid manufacturers and distributors. As a result of this litigation, the City received $200 million from a national pharmacy chain as part of $350 million in overall settlements from the opioid industry for contributing to the addiction crisis in San Francisco.[22] That funding is now being used to help people access substance use treatment in the City. Late last year, the City filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against ultra-processed food manufacturers, who have devised and marketed addictive and harmful products to maximize profits at the expense of patients, taxpayers, and public health departments.[23]

III. Federal-Facing Litigation

As progressive plaintiffs, cities and counties are agile litigants, ready to address new and thorny challenges that present themselves. In addition to consumer protection and public nuisances, local governments have proven to be strong defenders of the rule of law, fighting constitutional overreach by the federal government. In the past decade, San Francisco has filed lawsuits against the federal government to defend its communities, values, and federal funding.[24] The City’s ability to be effective has stemmed from its perspective on the ground: municipal lawyers can immediately see and articulate for courts how presidential executive orders and new grant funding conditions harm local residents and institutions. They can mobilize quickly and nimbly to strategize, craft a response, and highlight the harms to the city and its residents in terms that are persuasive and compelling to courts.

For example, in King County v. Turner, a multi-jurisdictional challenge to illegal conditions imposed on grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), San Francisco articulated—and the Court highlighted in its order granting a preliminary injunction—how the loss of the threatened HUD grants would place 2,000 individuals at risk of imminent evictions, and how such evictions would force individuals back into homelessness and cost San Francisco significant sums to rehome and otherwise support them.[25] The Ninth Circuit upheld, in nearly all respects, the lower court’s preliminary injunction order, agreeing with the lower court’s findings about the “devastating and irreparable” harm to local governments and their residents that would result from the loss of funding.[26]

As another example, San Francisco submitted extensive public comments in opposition to the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) proposed “Public Charge” rule expanding the discretion of immigration officers to render immigrants inadmissible based on their receipt of any type of public benefit, including vital programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and Medicaid. Working closely with departments and agencies within City government that administer such programs and provide support and care for immigrant families, city lawyers were able to explain how the draconian proposal would cause families to disenroll from essential public benefit programs in staggering numbers, leaving San Francisco to pay for uncompensated health care, housing, and other costs in the hopes of keeping them safe and healthy.[27] Despite receiving over eight thousand such comments from individuals and jurisdictions around the country, DHS finalized the rule, forcing cities and counties to take their fights to the courts. On September 14, 2026, several local governments, including San Francisco, filed suit to challenge the “Public Charge” rule, highlighting its illegality and the devastating impacts detailed in public comments that the federal government ignored.[28]

Since the beginning of the second Trump Administration—and starting with the very first lawsuit filed by a city against the Administration—San Francisco has brought 19 cases against the federal government as of the time of this essay’s publication, September 2026. The cases range from challenging the executive order banning birthright citizenship, preventing the deletion of essential public health data from government websites, opposing the dismantling of federal agencies through layoffs and reorganizations, and protecting public servants’ eligibility for Public Service Loan Forgiveness.[29] Two-thirds of the City’s lawsuits have challenged illegal conditions imposed on billions of dollars of federal funding for affordable housing and homelessness, health and human services, public safety and emergency preparedness, capital infrastructure and transportation, environmental protection, and education.

Early in the second Trump administration, San Francisco was one of only a handful of cities to file suit against the federal government, as others initially declined out of fear of becoming political targets. But that changed as suits across the country met with regular success in the district courts; San Francisco has won more than 90 percent of its trial court motions.  Other jurisdictions have joined lawsuits in the wake of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA, which limited plaintiffs’ ability to obtain so-called “universal” injunctions.[30] A lawsuit to defend sanctuary cities that began with five plaintiffs now has 50.[31] And the coalition of plaintiffs in King County v. Turner, the lawsuit filed to protect federal funding for homelessness services, public health programs, and transportation infrastructure, has grown from eight local jurisdictions to 75.[32]

IV. Capacity-Building Strategies

A robust affirmative practice takes resources that can strain even the most willing and engaged jurisdiction. San Francisco has many active affirmative cases in the areas of consumer protection, workers’ rights, housing, and code enforcement, in addition to many lawsuits defending the City’s federal funding and policy interests against attacks from the federal administration. But there are only about twenty-five lawyers who do this litigation work, on only a few teams, in an office of more than 200 lawyers. Many of them also have portfolios of other work, including defensive cases. Every affirmative lawsuit San Francisco files is the result of hundreds of hours of investigation, vetting, and preparation—and the resources required to litigate each matter to judgment or settlement are vastly greater. The number of potential enforcement actions greatly exceeds the City’s capacity to litigate them. Over time, the City Attorney’s Office has identified a number of strategies that help augment its capacity to take on this work.

1.  Partner with other jurisdictions.

Especially when challenging federal overreach, there is strength in numbers. More effective than one jurisdiction acting alone, a coalition of cities and counties allows us to build robust standing arguments, present evidence of cross-jurisdictional harm, and avoid spotlighting any individual jurisdiction as a political target. Such coalitions have also become essential after Trump v. CASA. A few years ago, the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office helped found the California Civil Prosecutors Coalition, a coalition of California’s largest city attorney and county counsel offices who have worked together to collaborate and co-litigate important cases as well as to defend California from attacks by the Trump administration. [33] The Office has also worked closely with local counterparts around the country, regularly engaging with 100-plus cities and counties committed to collective action in the face of a hostile administration. Cooperation with other local governments also extends beyond the Trump context. San Francisco has also partnered with a wide variety of advocacy and good government organizations.

2.  Strategically deploy outside counsel.

While San Francisco typically litigates cases on its own, it has occasionally teamed up with outside counsel in larger fights, especially in cases that have exceptionally large discovery demands or require specific areas of legal expertise. The City Attorney’s Office has co-counseled with top plaintiff firms in litigating against the opioid industry, fossil fuel companies, and ultra-processed food manufacturers. These firms help manage the onslaught of litigation tactics that some corporate defendants use in affirmative cases—everything from million-page discovery databases to meritless cross-complaints in far-flung jurisdictions.

3.  Use pre-litigation tools for consumer protection work.

During the first year after forming the California Civil Prosecution Coalition, the Coalition asked the state legislature to give public prosecutors with Unfair Competition Law enforcement powers the authority to issue pre-filing investigative subpoenas when they suspect a violation of that law—the same authority already possessed by the California Attorney General and district attorneys.[34] This modest extension of authority allows public law offices to act more quickly on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing in a targeted manner, rather than forcing us into filing a more time-consuming and costly lawsuit. Pre-litigation tools also allow offices to engage with an opposing party more quickly, which can lead to speedier early settlements that benefit both sides, allow us to evaluate the strength of a case early, and better protect consumers and law-abiding businesses from unfair practices. The Coalition has also worked together to ask the state legislature to clarify its members’ enforcement authority in worker protection cases, gun violence cases, elder abuse cases, and public nuisance cases.[35]

4.  Seek additional funding.

Lawsuits cost money; they require top-flight public lawyers, professional staff and experts, and numerous other expenses. Civil penalties that San Francisco recovers in cases brought under the Unfair Competition Law go back into the city treasury to fund future consumer protection work, as required by law. But the Office’s other work is not self-funding. To help the City Attorney’s Office afford to litigate against the second Trump Administration while maintaining a robust consumer protection and workers’ rights docket, San Francisco’s local lawmaking body (the San Francisco Board of Supervisors), the California state legislature, and some philanthropic partners have each provided funding to allow the Office to hire several more lawyers for the work, understanding that small upfront investments in legal services can protect billions of dollars of funding.

 5.  Partner with a law school.

For the last twenty years, Yale Law School students have contributed to San Francisco’s affirmative litigation through a clinic called the San Francisco Affirmative Litigation Project. This partnership has been a critical force-multiplier. In addition to supporting ongoing litigation, students have been instrumental in generating new case ideas, based on their interests, research, and life experiences. In addition to building capacity, law school partnerships also strengthen public sector lawyering in the long run by building a pipeline of talented government attorneys who can eventually be recruited by the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office or other public law offices.[36] Three members of the Office’s Complex and Affirmative Litigation team are alumni of the clinic, and many other alumni have taken jobs at state and local government offices doing impact litigation, inspired by their exposure to this work in law school. This clinic has significantly expanded San Francisco’s capacity to litigate affirmative cases and shaped the careers of hundreds of lawyers.

Conclusion

Cities and counties have long had good reason to build affirmative legal practices to stand up for consumers, workers, civil rights, the environment, and other critical parts of their communities. But this is a particularly critical time for more local governments to enter the fray. Progressive cities and counties looking to build their affirmative practice may find more openness from their constituents and from local and state legislatures, given the massive vacuum in federal civil law enforcement and regulation. All too often, the public and policymakers forget that the mere enactment of laws is not enough to ensure justice is carried out. Laws are only as effective as they are followed and enforced. Bringing affirmative cases—whether alone, in coalition with other state and local governments, or with help from law students or outside counsel—is one way local governments can rigorously protect their jurisdictions, their residents, and the rule of law.

Copyright © 2026 David Chiu and Emma Sokoloff-Rubin

David Chiu is the elected City Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco. Emma Sokoloff-Rubin is a lecturer in law at Yale Law School and the director of the San Francisco Affirmative Litigation Project. The authors thank Molly Alarcon, Erin Bernstein, Tessa Bialek, Sara Eisenberg, and Yvonne Meré for their many contributions to this essay; former Yale Law School Dean Heather Gerken and Kathleen Morris for founding the partnership and Heather for her visionary leadership of it for nearly twenty years; former City Attorney Dennis Herrera for taking a chance on a cross-country partnership and investing in it wholeheartedly; all current and former SFALP supervisors, fellows, and students for making the program what it is; SFALP students and recent graduates Daniela Alvarez, Katie Becker, Sydney Brown, Jorge Ledesma, Sarena Martinez, and Elizabeth Tran for excellent research assistance; and the editors of the California Law Review Online, especially Alexa Chavara and Adam Opin, for their edits and collaboration.

[2] Morris’s work sets out the theoretical and doctrinal framework for affirmative litigation by cities, the case for its necessity, and the scope of San Francisco’s affirmative practice in the first and second decades of the 21st century. See Expanding Local Enforcement of State and Federal Consumer Protection Laws, 40 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1903 (2013); The Case for Local Constitutional Enforcement, 47 Harv. C. R.–C.L. L. Rev. 1 (2012); see also Democracy’s Double Agents, 59 U. Mich. J. L. Reform (forthcoming 2026); San Francisco and the Rising Culture of Engagement in Local Public Law Offices, reprinted in Why the Local Matters: Federalism, Localism, & Public Interest Advocacy, Liman Center (2008). For additional foundational work on affirmative litigation by local governments, see Sarah L. Swan, Plaintiff Cities, 71 Vand. L. Rev. 1227 (2018), whose article title inspired ours; Kaitlin Ainsworth Caruso, Associational Standing for Cities, 47 Conn. L. Rev. 59, 96 (2014); Heather K. Gerken, Foreword: Federalism All the Way Down, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 4, 23–24 (2010); Christine Kwon & Marissa Roy, Local Action, National Impact: Standing Up for Sanctuary Cities, 127 Yale L.J. F. 715 (2018); David J. Barron, Why (and When) Cities Have a Stake in Enforcing the Constitution, 115 Yale L.J. 2218, 2218-24 (2006); Richard C. Schragger, Cities as Constitutional Actors: The Case of Same-Sex Marriage, 21 J.L. & Pol. 147–185 (2005). This essay builds on existing scholarship by describing the shape San Francisco’s affirmative docket has taken over the past five years—fifty years into the tradition of affirmative litigation by local government that Morris and other scholars have described and theorized—with a particular eye toward how dramatic changes on the federal level have shaped the demand for local affirmative litigation and the strategies San Francisco and other cities have used to rise to that challenge.

[3]See e.g. City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-01 (N.D. Cal filed February 2025) (challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to assist federal immigration efforts); New Jersey v. Trump, 131 F.4th 27 (1st Cir. 2025) (challenging, as the only local plaintiff in a coalition of states, an Executive Order seeking to limit birthright citizenship), aff’d sub num Trump v. Barbara, 146 S. Ct. 2438 (2026); S.F. Unified Sch. Distr. v. AmeriCorps, 289 F. Supp. 3d 716 (granting a preliminary injunction of grant conditions requiring school district to certify their programs do not include activities promoting “diversity equity and inclusion”); City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Dep’t of Just., No. 3:25-cv 0977 (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 2025) (challenging anti-DEI and other unlawful grant conditions attached to grants supporting community policing including through hiring, training, and mental health resources); Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Noem, 815 F. Supp. 3d 979 (N.D. Cal 2025) (granting a preliminary injunction of similar conditions on infrastructure security, homeland security, and urban search and rescue grants).

[4] See Habig & Pearl, supra note 2, (arguing for the value and necessity of multiple and overlapping mechanisms of enforcement, at all levels of government); see also Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Vought, No. 1:25-cv-00458 (D. Md. filed Feb. 2025) (City of Baltimore among plaintiffs suing to challenge Trump Administration’s shutdown of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau); Harris Cnty. v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, No. 1:25-cv-03646 (D.D.C. filed Oct. 2025) (Harris County, Texas sues Trump Administration after termination of “Solar For All” grant intended to expand access to affordable and clean energy in low-income communities); United States v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 1:25-cv-04458 (D.D.C. filed Dec. 2025) (Trump Administration challenge to several DC gun laws as violating the Second Amendment). 

[5] See, e.g., Lawsuit Protecting Sanctuary Jurisdictions from Illegal Federal Overreach Grows to 50 Local Governments, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (July 9, 2025), https://sfcityattorney.org/lawsuit-protecting-sanctuary-jurisdictions-from-illegal-federal-overreach-grows-to-50-local-governments/. For a fuller picture, seethe Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse database of lawsuits in which cities or counties have been among the plaintiffs suing the second Trump Administration, or among the defendants being sued by that Administration).

[6] Indeed, during the first Trump Administration, many cities and counties, including Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, New York City, and Santa Clara County, among others, created new affirmative practices or enhanced affirmative work they were already doing. See, e.g., Ben Austen, How Chicago Is Using Lawsuits to Force Change, Chi. Trib. (Dec. 8, 2025, updated July 2, 2026), https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/12/08/how-chicago-is-using-lawsuits-to-force-change/ [https://perma.cc/XD5A-HJS5] (describing the creation of Chicago’s affirmative litigation division in 2018).

[7] See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

[8] City Attorney Sues Maker of Vanilla Gift Cards Over Consumer Scams, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (Nov. 20, 2023), https://sfcityattorney.org/city-attorney-sues-maker-of-vanilla-gift-cards-over-consumer-scams/ [https://perma.cc/7DRD-55KV]; Elizabeth Napolitano, "Vanilla Gift" Card Issuer Faces Lawsuit Over Card-Draining Scam Risk, CBS News (Dec. 21, 2023), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gift-card-vanilla-scam-lawsuit-draining-incomm/ [https://perma.cc/B6XR-Z9YA].

[9] City Attorney of San Francisco, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego Partner with State Attorney General to Sue Uber and Lyft Alleging Worker Misclassification (May 5, 2020), https://web.archive.org/web/20200507133330/www.sfcityattorney.org/2020/05/05/san-francisco-los-angeles-and-san-diego-partner-with-state-attorney-general-to-sue-uber-and-lyft-alleging-worker-misclassification/ [https://perma.cc/5GZ6-H7AA].

[10] See, e.g., St. John Barned-Smith, S.F. Gig Staffing Company to Pay $4.5 Million to Settle Claims It Deprived Workers of Benefits, S.F. Chron. (Jan. 21, 2026), https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/workwhile-city-attorney-settlement-21305794.php [https://perma.cc/B5AB-TZJA]; Chiu Secures $4.5 Million Settlement for Delivery Drivers Misclassified by Workwhile, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (Jan. 21, 2026), https://sfcityattorney.org/chiu-secures-4-5-million-settlement-for-delivery-drivers-misclassified-by-workwhile/ [https://perma.cc/N6UD-JZR3]; Chiu Secures $2.1 Million Deal Requiring Gig Economy Company to Reclassify Workers as Employees,, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (Feb. 22, 2024), https://sfcityattorney.org/chiu-secures-2-1-million-deal-requiring-gig-economy-company-to-reclassify-workers-as-employees/ [https://perma.cc/7CKS-MCW2].

[11] City Attorney Shuts Down 10 Websites That Create Nonconsensual Deepfake Pornography, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (June 2, 2025), https://sfcityattorney.org/city-attorney-shuts-down-10-websites-that-create-nonconsensual-deepfake-pornography/ [https://perma.cc/Y2RB-MA49]; Luz Pena, SF Shuts Down 10 of the World's Most-Visited Websites Using AI to Generate Explicit Content, ABC7 San Francisco (June 2, 2025), https://abc7news.com/post/deepfake-porn-san-francisco-shuts-down-10-worlds-most-visited-websites-using-ai-generate-explicit-content/16638231/ [https://perma.cc/N25Q-GTBU].

[12] See, e.g., Cayla Mihalovich, California Sues Websites that Publish Blueprints for 3D Printer Ghost Guns, CalMatters (Feb. 7, 2026), https://calmatters.org/justice/2026/02/3d-printer-ghost-gun-lawsuit/ [https://perma.cc/V5RY-FVX3]; City Attorney Chiu and Attorney General Bonta Sue Websites Distributing 3d-Printed Gun Blueprints, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (Feb. 6, 2026), https://www.sf.gov/news-city-attorney-chiu-and-attorney-general-bonta-sue-websites-distributing-3d-printed-gun-blueprints [https://perma.cc/NX3Q-WKFK].

[13] See, e.g., City Attorney Secures Million-Dollar Victories in Code Enforcement Lawsuits, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (July 26, 2024), https://sfcityattorney.org/city-attorney-secures-million-dollar-victories-in-code-enforcement-lawsuits/ [https://perma.cc/638M-RTYH]; Kevin Truong, Landlords Illegally Chopped Up 17 Apartments Into 49 Units. Now They’re Paying Out Millions, S.F. Standard (July 31, 2024), https://sfstandard.com/2024/07/31/landlords-illegally-chopped-up-apartments-into-more-units-now-theyre-paying-out-millions/ [https://perma.cc/WP6A-257G].

[14] City Attorney Cracks Down on Drug and Gambling Dens Fronting as Convenience Stores, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (Jan. 29, 2026), https://sfcityattorney.org/city-attorney-cracks-down-on-drug-and-gambling-dens-fronting-as-convenience-stores/ [https://perma.cc/5JJD-CSBR].

[15] SF City Attorney Shuts Down ‘Brazen’ Illegal Nightclub, Gambling Dens, Mission Local (Mar. 19, 2025), https://missionlocal.org/2025/03/s-f-city-attorney-shuts-down-brazen-illegal-nightclub-gambling-dens/ [https://perma.cc/9Z6X-VPJP].

[16] City Attorney Cracks Down on Illegal Grow Houses That Undermine Legal Cannabis Market, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (Mar. 31, 2025), https://www.sf.gov/news-city-attorney-cracks-down-on-illegal-grow-houses-that-undermine-legal-cannabis-market [https://perma.cc/37DZ-GUCW].

[17] See, e.g., Complaint, City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Saffari-Kermani, No. CGC-23-605738 (S.F. Cnty. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 2023).

[18] California Cities and Counties Announce Groundbreaking $305 Million Settlement of Landmark Lead Paint Litigation, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (July 17, 2019), https://sfcityattorney.org/california-cities-and-counties-announce-groundbreaking-305-million-settlement-of-landmark-lead-paint-litigation/ [https://perma.cc/RR5Q-WN8N]; Don Thompson, Lead Paint Suppliers to Pay $305 Million to Settle California Lawsuit, PBS Newshour (July 17, 2019), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/lead-paint-suppliers-to-pay-305-million-to-settle-california-lawsuit [https://perma.cc/ZL5B-4MB5].

[19] California Borrowers Net $7.7 Million from S.F.’s City Attorney’s Payday Lender Lawsuit, PR Newswire (Aug. 5, 2013) https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/california-borrowers-net-77-million-from-sfs-city-attorneys-payday-lender-lawsuit-218389931.html [https://perma.cc/2RBU-XH5D].

[20] See, e.g., Bay City News Service, SF: Online Tobacco Co. Agrees To $1 Mil Settlement After Allegations It Violated City's Flavored Tobacco Ban, SF Gate (Jan. 11, 2026), https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/sf-online-tobacco-co-agrees-to-1-mil-21289874.php [https://perma.cc/GR9F-CFGH].; City Attorney Secures $1 Million Settlement from Online Tobacco Retailer, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (Jan. 8, 2026), https://sfcityattorney.org/city-attorney-secures-1-million-settlement-from-online-tobacco-retailer/ [https://perma.cc/N3D7-224D].

[21] City Attorney David Chiu Issues Statement on Climate Change Lawsuit, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (Sep. 19, 2023), https://sfcityattorney.org/city-attorney-david-chiu-issues-statement-on-climate-change-lawsuit/ [https://perma.cc/CR24-DHTT].

[22] Jonathan Stempel, Walgreens Reaches $230 Million Opioid Settlement with San Francisco, Reuters (May 17, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/legal/walgreens-reaches-230-mln-opioid-settlement-with-san-francisco-2023-05-17/ [https://perma.cc/G92S-C2MC]; San Francisco City Attorney Announces $230 Million Settlement with Walgreens After Victory in Opioid Litigation, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (May 17, 2023), https://sfcityattorney.org/san-francisco-city-attorney-announces-230-million-settlement-with-walgreens-after-victory-in-opioid-litigation/ [https://perma.cc/G92S-C2MC];

Allergan, Teva to Pay $54M to Settle City of San Francisco Opioid Lawsuit, CBS News (July 22, 2022), https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/sf-opioid-lawsuit-allergan-teva-54m-settlement [https://perma.cc/EJ3K-5UDK]; City Attorney Announces $54 Million Settlement with Opioid Defendants Allergan and Teva, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (July 12, 2022), https://sfcityattorney.org/city-attorney-announces-54-million-settlement-with-opioid-defendants-allergan-and-teva/ [https://perma.cc/CZP9-ZASX].

[23] Heather Knight, San Francisco Sues Ultraprocessed Food Companies, N.Y. Times (Dec. 2, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/02/us/san-francisco-ultraprocessed-food-lawsuit.html [https://perma.cc/2G85-YHQ7]; San Francisco City Attorney Chiu Sues Largest Manufacturers of Ultra-processed Foods, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (Dec. 2, 2025), https://sfcityattorney.org/san-francisco-city-attorney-chiu-sues-largest-manufacturers-of-ultra-processed-foods/ [https://perma.cc/E5SX-FFLV].

[24] See, e.g., Federal Court Blocks Trump Administration from Withholding Funds to Sanctuary Jurisdictions, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (Apr. 24, 2025), https://sfcityattorney.org/federal-court-blocks-trump-administration-from-withholding-funds-to-sanctuary-jurisdictions/ [https://perma.cc/4QDN-DNBC]; First Circuit Continues to Block Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (Oct. 3, 2025), https://sfcityattorney.org/first-circuit-continues-to-block-trumps-birthright-citizenship-order/ [https://perma.cc/8QUY-T82B].

[25] Martin Luther King, Jr. Cnty. v. Turner, 785 F. Supp. 3d 863, 891 (W.D. Wash. 2025), aff’d in relevant part Martin Luther King, Jr. Cnty. v. Turner, 2026 WL 2489361 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2026).

[26] Turner, 2026 WL 2489361, at *14.

[27] City & Cnty. of S.F., Comment on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility (Dec. 19, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/USCIS-2025-0304-4724 [https://perma.cc/VK4C-QSHV].

[28] City of New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-cv-07982 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2026) (filed in coalition by San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Seattle, Santa Clara County, and Martin Luther King Jr. County); City Attorney of San Francisco, San Francisco Challenges Public Charge Rule That Targets Immigrants (Aug. 25, 2026), https://www.sf.gov/news-san-francisco-challenges-public-charge-rule-that-targets-immigrants [https://perma.cc/LAJ7-8PNH]; see also Madeleine Ngo, States and Cities Sue Over Trump's Policy to Restrict Green Cards, N.Y. Times (Sep. 14, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/14/us/politics/green-cards-immigration-lawsuit.html [https://perma.cc/UYC8-EADF] (describing two lawsuits, one brought by a coalition of states and the other by coalition of cities and counties).

[29] New Jersey v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-10139 (D. Mass. Jan 21, 2025) (Birthright Citizenship); Doctors for America v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. 1:25-cv-00322 (D.D.C. Feb. 4, 2025) (CDC Data Removal); AFGE v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2025) (Dismantling); National Council of Nonprofits v. McMahon, No. 1:25-cv-13242 (D. Mass. Nov. 3, 2025) (Public Service Loan Forgiveness).

[29]Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025).

[30]Id.

[31] Tim Henderson, More Cities, Counties Join Immigrant Sanctuary Lawsuit Seeking to Block Trump Funding Cuts, Stateline (July 9, 2025), https://stateline.org/2025/07/09/more-cities-counties-join-immigrant-sanctuary-lawsuit-seeking-to-block-trump-funding-cuts [https://perma.cc/73KB-QBRP].

[32] Martin Luther King, Jr. Cnty. v. Turner, No. 2:25-cv-814 (W.D. Wash. May 2, 2025).

[33] Civil Prosecutors Coalition, About & Priorities, https://www.calcivilprosecutors.org/about/ [https://perma.cc/86KY-KGKM] & https://www.calcivilprosecutors.org/priorities/ [https://perma.cc/M8TY-QC5N] (last visited Aug. 10, 2026).

[34] City Attorneys and County Counsels Applaud New California Consumer Protection Law, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco (Sep. 29, 2022), https://www.sf.gov/news-city-attorneys-and-county-counsels-applaud-new-california-consumer-protection-law [https://perma.cc/7TSN-PPBH].

[35] Accomplishments, Cal. Civil Prosecutors, https://www.calcivilprosecutors.org/accomplishments/ [https://perma.cc/YCC6-2TLE] (describing the Coalition’s legislative efforts).

[36] The deputy city attorneys regularly build mentoring relationships with students and provide advice to students on summer internships, course selection, extra-curricular activities, and jobs after graduation. This is rewarding for attorney-mentors and SFALP students alike, and it also helps strengthen the pipeline of future government lawyers dedicated to public interest work.