WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Friday, January 12th, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review lower-court rulings related to cities on the west coast and their ability to prevent people from sleeping on the streets when there are not enough beds in homeless shelters.
According to the Associated Press (AP), the justices will hear an appeal from the city of Grants Pass, Oregon. The court's decision to review the ruling comes just one day after a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower-court ruling blocking anti-camping ordinances in San Francisco, California.
California, which has a Democrat governor, has struggled in dealing with the homelessness that has grown in the wake of rising housing costs and income inequality.
A separate 9th U.S. Circuit panel previously ruled in the Oregon case that Grants Pass could not enforce local ordinances that prohibit homeless people from "using a blanket, pillow or cardboard box for protection from the elements." That decision applies across nine western states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
Both rulings, which mirror a 2018 decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit in a case from Boise, Idaho, found that punishing people for "sleeping" on the streets when no alternative shelter is available amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment," thereby violating the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.
Theane Evangelis, a lawyer for Grants Pass, said that the appellate decisions are "actually harming the very people they purport to protect." Advocates for the homeless say that sweeps are "cruel and a waste of taxpayer money," adding that the answer is more housing, not crackdowns.
Ed Johnson, a lawyer for homeless people who are challenging the Grants Pass ordinances, said in a statement, "The issue before the Court is whether cities can punish homeless residents simply for existing without access to shelter. Nevertheless, some politicians and others are cynically and falsely blaming the judiciary for the homelessness crisis to distract the public and deflect blame for years of failed policies."
According to Fox 5, depending on what the Supreme Court decides, it could have sweeping impacts on how local officials in San Diego, California, and their ability to address homeless encampments.
For cities like San Diego, which has its own homeless encampment ban on its books, the decision that the justices reach in Grants Pass will likely reshape the legal paradigm for regulating homeless encampments along streets and in other public spaces. California Governor Gavin Newsom has been very vocal in his criticism of ruling in the 2018 case of Martin v. Boise.
In his own statement on Friday, January 12th, he said that the high court's decision to hear the Grants Pass case is an "opportunity to course correct and end the costly delays from lawsuits." Newsom was one of many groups to file "amicus curiae" briefs in the case to urge the Supreme Court to take it on. The city of San Diego and District Attorney Summer Stephan also reportedly filed similar briefs.
Legal analyst Dan Eaton told Fox 5 that, "advocates on both sides have an interest in bringing all of these issues before the Supreme Court so that a definitive resolution can be made about these critically important questions that affect so many people." He added, "The question in the case before the Supreme Curt is: how free a hand are cities going to have to deal with this issue of encampments, which is a specific expression of being unhoused."
This will be the first time the Supreme Court will directly discuss the every-growing issue of homelessness and what parameters cities have to police those encampments. The high court has previously declined to hear appeals in similar cases, including an appeal from the city of Boise.
In 2022, the number of unhoused people reached 580,000 nationwide. According to the San Diego Housing Commission, in their city, the number of unhoused people leaving the shelter system has outpaced the number of people falling into homelessness for nearly two years. According to legal analysts, arguments for both sides of the case will likely come down to questions about interpretations of the "text, history, and tradition of the Eighth Amendment."
The right to due process granted under the Fourteenth Amendment could also pose a constitutional question for the Supreme Court. Legal analysis Wendy Patrick said in a statement to Fox 5, "It really might come down to more of a due process argument. In other words, can you be held criminally liable for a scenario that you can't avoid. The goal is to lead people to shelters in every jurisdiction, not necessarily to say, 'Oh, let's jump first to criminal penalties."
In September, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria said that the best case scenario for how Grants Pass plays out would be go get some "certainty of what expectations of cities are." He added, "What we are hoping for is a ruling that would say that cities can continue their enforcement efforts ... obviously doing those in the most compassionate ways, the ways that follow best practices and formed by the experiences of those who have lived on our streets."
According to the Associated Press (AP), the justices will hear an appeal from the city of Grants Pass, Oregon. The court's decision to review the ruling comes just one day after a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower-court ruling blocking anti-camping ordinances in San Francisco, California.
California, which has a Democrat governor, has struggled in dealing with the homelessness that has grown in the wake of rising housing costs and income inequality.
A separate 9th U.S. Circuit panel previously ruled in the Oregon case that Grants Pass could not enforce local ordinances that prohibit homeless people from "using a blanket, pillow or cardboard box for protection from the elements." That decision applies across nine western states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
Both rulings, which mirror a 2018 decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit in a case from Boise, Idaho, found that punishing people for "sleeping" on the streets when no alternative shelter is available amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment," thereby violating the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.
Theane Evangelis, a lawyer for Grants Pass, said that the appellate decisions are "actually harming the very people they purport to protect." Advocates for the homeless say that sweeps are "cruel and a waste of taxpayer money," adding that the answer is more housing, not crackdowns.
Ed Johnson, a lawyer for homeless people who are challenging the Grants Pass ordinances, said in a statement, "The issue before the Court is whether cities can punish homeless residents simply for existing without access to shelter. Nevertheless, some politicians and others are cynically and falsely blaming the judiciary for the homelessness crisis to distract the public and deflect blame for years of failed policies."
According to Fox 5, depending on what the Supreme Court decides, it could have sweeping impacts on how local officials in San Diego, California, and their ability to address homeless encampments.
For cities like San Diego, which has its own homeless encampment ban on its books, the decision that the justices reach in Grants Pass will likely reshape the legal paradigm for regulating homeless encampments along streets and in other public spaces. California Governor Gavin Newsom has been very vocal in his criticism of ruling in the 2018 case of Martin v. Boise.
In his own statement on Friday, January 12th, he said that the high court's decision to hear the Grants Pass case is an "opportunity to course correct and end the costly delays from lawsuits." Newsom was one of many groups to file "amicus curiae" briefs in the case to urge the Supreme Court to take it on. The city of San Diego and District Attorney Summer Stephan also reportedly filed similar briefs.
Legal analyst Dan Eaton told Fox 5 that, "advocates on both sides have an interest in bringing all of these issues before the Supreme Court so that a definitive resolution can be made about these critically important questions that affect so many people." He added, "The question in the case before the Supreme Curt is: how free a hand are cities going to have to deal with this issue of encampments, which is a specific expression of being unhoused."
This will be the first time the Supreme Court will directly discuss the every-growing issue of homelessness and what parameters cities have to police those encampments. The high court has previously declined to hear appeals in similar cases, including an appeal from the city of Boise.
In 2022, the number of unhoused people reached 580,000 nationwide. According to the San Diego Housing Commission, in their city, the number of unhoused people leaving the shelter system has outpaced the number of people falling into homelessness for nearly two years. According to legal analysts, arguments for both sides of the case will likely come down to questions about interpretations of the "text, history, and tradition of the Eighth Amendment."
The right to due process granted under the Fourteenth Amendment could also pose a constitutional question for the Supreme Court. Legal analysis Wendy Patrick said in a statement to Fox 5, "It really might come down to more of a due process argument. In other words, can you be held criminally liable for a scenario that you can't avoid. The goal is to lead people to shelters in every jurisdiction, not necessarily to say, 'Oh, let's jump first to criminal penalties."
In September, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria said that the best case scenario for how Grants Pass plays out would be go get some "certainty of what expectations of cities are." He added, "What we are hoping for is a ruling that would say that cities can continue their enforcement efforts ... obviously doing those in the most compassionate ways, the ways that follow best practices and formed by the experiences of those who have lived on our streets."
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments
2024-01-20T08:23-0500 | Comment by: Teri
Ship all the illegals entering our country and us that money to help our homeless. The government is creating this crises now they need to fix the problem.
2024-01-20T18:49-0500 | Comment by: G
“Income inequality”? Stop smoking meth and get to work like the rest of us.