FREMONT >> Fremont’s controversial camping ban has been temporarily put on hold, according to city officials and the attorney suing the city to repeal the ordinance.

In a court filing, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney recommended putting the ban on ice until the city finalizes an amendment the Fremont City Council approved Tuesday to remove an “aiding and abetting” clause from the ordinance.

Anthony Prince, the lead attorney representing several homeless residents and several faith-based organizations, said Fremont City Attorney Rafael Alvarado Jr. as of Thursday recommended that the city pause enforcement of the ban. Prince said his clients agreed to pause the lawsuit, which was filed Tuesday in federal court, but added that this won’t be the end of their legal battle.

“The whole thing has to go,” Prince said in an interview. “You cannot amend this thing. We think it needs to be repealed. There’s no way to repair it.”

Alvarado Jr. and City Manager Karena Shackelford did not respond to requests for comment Friday. But Fremont spokeswoman Geneva Bosques said via email the city will hold off on enforcement until council meets again March 18 to finalize amending the ban.

“The city believes it makes sense to temporarily stay enforcement until the amendment is considered by the council,” Bosques wrote. “This also allows briefing to be deferred in a recently filed lawsuit challenging the city’s camping ordinance until after consideration of the amendment.”

The council on Tuesday voted 6-1 to take out an “aiding and abetting” clause that would criminalize people for offering assistance such as food, clothing or tents to homeless people. But Prince said that amending it still does not address the issues homeless people will face under the camping ban.

“We don’t support removing the aiding and abetting clause and leaving everything else intact,” Prince said. “At the same time, it has diverted attention away from the key issue, which is the expanded criminalization and intensified criminalization of the homeless.”

Several council members have insisted at public meetings that many opposing the ban are spreading “misinformation” or “fear-mongering” — or are confused with the intent of the ban.

Councilman Raymond Liu, who was elected in November, said critics of the ban have been spreading an “absurd amount of misinformation, deliberate lies and outright untruths that are surrounding this ordinance.”

Mayor Raj Salwan previously told this news organization that “changes to the ordinance were meant to “reassure our service providers and set the record straight.”

But Prince disagreed.

“We think there’s deception going on here,” Prince said. “They’re making these comments and they’re trying to reassure some of these charitable organizations that they’ll be able to continue what they’re doing. But that’s not what’s in the ordinance.”

Violating the ban could result in a misdemeanor charge with a fine up to $1,000 and up to six months in jail.

Vice Mayor Desire Campbell, the only council member who voted twice against the ban, asked if the council would be willing to lower the penalties for violating the ban to a simple infraction and $100 citation. When her request was denied, Campbell voted against the amendment before the council on Tuesday.

Fremont had over 800 homeless people in 2024, according to the latest homeless census data, 612 of whom were living unsheltered, with 62% in a vehicle or RV and 20% in a tent or makeshift shelter.

The plaintiffs suing the city include several people currently living in tents and other makeshift camps. Among them are José Arroyo, a disabled former master technician; Corrine Griffith, a disabled woman who suffers from multiple personality disorder and epilepsy; and Michael Austin, a homeless handyman who lives in a tent with a spring mattress to help his arthritic back.

They all could face jail time or fines, Prince argues in the lawsuit, because they possess “camping paraphernalia,” or items such as tents, tarps and tools in violation of the camping ban. The ordinance was previously expected to go into effect March 13.

“What is the distinction? How can you give someone clothing, but then say you can’t have a tent. The clothing is supposed to sit out there, exposed to the elements, get moldy?” Prince said. “It makes no sense on its face. If a homeless person has personal property and they set it down in a public place, then that’s a violation of the ordinance.”