> The prohibition on public officials denying people rights without due process required by the federal and state constitution isn't a “national policy lens” th

> The prohibition on public officials denying people rights without due process required by the federal and state constitution isn't a “national policy lens” that is inapplicable to “very local matters”. Arguably these injunctions aren't too different from spousal abuse or harassment restraining orders, ignoring some technical legal issues regarding scope and cognizable claim. There is process--whether it's "due process" is the question. Certainly there seems to be greater due process than gang injunctions, which are constitutional under current Supreme Court precedent, as the requested injunctions were on named individuals with a history of drug dealing that would need to be satisfactorily shown in court. Compare to gang injunctions, which AFAIU merely required a showing that a particular person was in an enjoined gang. From opinion synopses, the injunctions seem to have been rejected primarily because of their scope--geographic area encompassing important regional government services, and excessive duration. The appellate opinion, contrasting with the trial court, says this specifically--"we are not prepared to hold that a stay-away order could never be a potential remedy...." I won't dispute that as an end-run around the DA (i.e. but-for the DA, everybody agrees the proper course of action would be to seek an injunction specifically as part of conviction), it's barely defensible, if at all. But the fact the city is seeking them is not evidence of a fundamental shift in San Francisco city official's criminal justice reform efforts writ large. Yet that's exactly what Boudin will claim and is claiming as part of his campaign to defeat recall--that everybody but him is committed to meaningful reform, and all those opposing him (especially those supporting his recall) wish to return to the tough-on-crime policies of decades past.