Charles Breyer

Charles Breyer is a federal judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He joined the court in 1997 after an appointment by President Bill Clinton. He assumed senior status on December 31, 2011.^[1] Charles Breyer's brother is Stephen Breyer, an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Early life and education

Born in San Francisco, Calif., Breyer graduated from Harvard College with his bachelor's degree in 1963 and later from the University of California Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law with his J.D. in 1966.^[1]

Professional career

1980-1997: Attorney in private practice
1979-1980: Chief assistant district attorney, San Francisco County, California
1974-1979: Attorney in private practice
1974: Assistant special prosecutor, Watergate Special Prosecution Task Force
1968-1973: Assistant district attorney, San Francisco County, California
1967: Counsel, Legal Aid Society of San Francisco
1966-1967: Law clerk, Honorable Oliver Carter in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ^[1]

Judicial career

Northern District of California

On the recommendation of U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, Breyer was nominated to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by President Bill Clinton on July 24, 1997, to a seat vacated by Delwen Jensen. Jensen assumed senior status at that time. Breyer was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 8, 1997, on a Senate voice vote and received commission on November 12, 1997. He assumed senior status on December 31, 2011.^[1]

Noteworthy cases

San Francisco landlord-tenant law struck down (2014)

When Daniel and Maria Levin purchased a building in 2008 in San Francisco, it had a tenant living on the first floor. It appears the couple moved into the second floor apartment, and landlord and tenant co-existed for several years. The couple did not wish to remain landlords, so they asked the tenant to vacate the apartment with the intention of remodeling the building into a one-family home. When the tenant refused and the Levins needed the lower apartment for family members, they evicted the tenant under the city’s Ellis Act. That Act allows landlords to evict tenants when they wish to no longer rent the property to anyone. The Levins paid the tenant a total of $8,000 for relocation under what they thought was a law still in effect, but now the tenant and the city claim that she is owed $117,000 under new city law.

The law, which became effective in June 2014, requires landlords to pay tenants evicted under the Ellis Act “the difference between the current rent and two years’ payments on a comparable unit elsewhere.”^[2] For the Levins’ tenant, this difference totaled over $117,000.

Landlords argued in court that the law does not ensure that the money that is paid to the tenant is then used on housing in the city or on housing at all. Also, there is no way to ensure the tenants most in need, low-income tenants, are the ones who receive the payments, which is the purpose behind the law. The city argued that the law helps ease the burden on the tenant entering a high-priced housing market after leaving a property through no fault of their own. U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer agreed with the landlords. He said that the law is unfair and punishes landlords for a housing market beyond their control. Further, the law is not limited to low-income tenants on its face.

The older law, under which the Levins’ calculated what they needed to pay their tenant, required landlords to pay tenants $4,500 plus inflation adjustments. Judge Breyer said this amount was more realistic and equal to what tenants moving out would need to find new housing.

Articles:

'Abortion bubble' case (2009)

See also: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Walter B. Hoye, II, v. City of Oakland, C 07-06411 CRB)

On August 4, 2009, Judge Breyer upheld a city of Oakland ordinance that requires abortion protesters to be eight feet away from a clinic. The lawsuit was filed Reverend Walter Hoye, a Baptist minister who was convicted of violating the ordinance in 2008.^[3]

The judge found the law was content-neutral and did not violate the First Amendment.^[3]