Justices Will Weigh Cities’ Policies on Homeless Camps
BY LAURA KUSISTO AND JESS BRAVIN
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether it is constitutional for municipalities to prohibit homeless people from camping in public spaces when they have nowhere else to go, an issue that has galvanized officials across the political spectrum as they look to address the growing problem of encampments. The case involves civil ordinances in the small Oregon city of Grants Pass, which prohibited homeless individuals from sleeping in public with rudimentary protections from the elements, such as blankets.
In a 2-to-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the measure violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The decision largely relied upon a 2018 decision from the same court that said the city of Boise, Idaho, couldn’t prosecute people for sleeping on public property when there aren’t sufficient shelter beds.
The cases have loomed over homelessness policy in western cities, where government officials say courts have interpreted the rulings to prevent them from clearing homeless encampments even when they have become dangerous or unsanitary. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over nine western states and U.S. possessions in the Pacific. “These decisions are legally wrong and have tied the hands of local governments as they work to address the urgent homelessness crisis,” said Theane Evangelis, a lawyer for Grants Pass. “The tragedy is that these decisions are actually harming the very people they purport to protect.” Ed Johnson, litigation director at the Oregon Law Center that represents the homeless people, saw it differently. “The issue before the court is whether cities can punish homeless residents simply for existing without access to shelter,” he said. “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.”
The Supreme Court received more than two dozen briefs urging it to hear Grants Pass’s appeal, with submissions coming from leading officials in red and blue states. Cities from Phoenix to San Francisco asked the court to resolve the issue, as did a group of Republican state attorneys general and California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. Court decisions “have paralyzed communities and blunted the force of even the most common-sense and good-faith laws to limit the impact of encampments,” Newsom said in his brief.
The high court could hear oral arguments as soon as April. Local authorities once had broad power to clear people they considered undesirable from public property through vagrancy and loitering laws. Over the 20th century, however, the Supreme Court turned a critical eye toward measures that appeared to punish individuals because they were homeless or unemployed— that is, because of their status rather than conduct.
In 1972, the court struck down vagrancy laws as too vague to be constitutional, effectively giving police too much discretion to decide who was lawfully standing on a street corner and who was illegally prowling, loitering or, as a Jacksonville, Fla., ordinance put it, “nightwalking.”
The court took four other cases on Friday, including a labor dispute between Star-bucks and workers seeking to organize at a Memphis, Tenn., coffee shop. In 2022, Starbucks fired seven employees who helped stage an after-hours media event at the store. Federal courts ordered the company to reinstate the employees while the National Labor Relations Board weighed an unfair labor practice charge against the coffee retailer. The Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, found that by firing leaders of the organizing drive, Starbucks interfered with employees’ unionization rights, leading other workers to fear retaliation if they supported the effort. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Starbucks argues that courts must consider additional factors before issuing such temporary orders. The employees ultimately voted 11-3 in favor of unionizing.
Los Angeles city employees cleaned up an encampment as homeless people moved into temporary housing in October. JAE C. HONG/ ASSOCIATED PRESS
BY LAURA KUSISTO AND JESS BRAVIN
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether it is constitutional for municipalities to prohibit homeless people from camping in public spaces when they have nowhere else to go, an issue that has galvanized officials across the political spectrum as they look to address the growing problem of encampments. The case involves civil ordinances in the small Oregon city of Grants Pass, which prohibited homeless individuals from sleeping in public with rudimentary protections from the elements, such as blankets.
In a 2-to-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the measure violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The decision largely relied upon a 2018 decision from the same court that said the city of Boise, Idaho, couldn’t prosecute people for sleeping on public property when there aren’t sufficient shelter beds.
The cases have loomed over homelessness policy in western cities, where government officials say courts have interpreted the rulings to prevent them from clearing homeless encampments even when they have become dangerous or unsanitary. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over nine western states and U.S. possessions in the Pacific. “These decisions are legally wrong and have tied the hands of local governments as they work to address the urgent homelessness crisis,” said Theane Evangelis, a lawyer for Grants Pass. “The tragedy is that these decisions are actually harming the very people they purport to protect.” Ed Johnson, litigation director at the Oregon Law Center that represents the homeless people, saw it differently. “The issue before the court is whether cities can punish homeless residents simply for existing without access to shelter,” he said. “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.”
The Supreme Court received more than two dozen briefs urging it to hear Grants Pass’s appeal, with submissions coming from leading officials in red and blue states. Cities from Phoenix to San Francisco asked the court to resolve the issue, as did a group of Republican state attorneys general and California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. Court decisions “have paralyzed communities and blunted the force of even the most common-sense and good-faith laws to limit the impact of encampments,” Newsom said in his brief.
The high court could hear oral arguments as soon as April. Local authorities once had broad power to clear people they considered undesirable from public property through vagrancy and loitering laws. Over the 20th century, however, the Supreme Court turned a critical eye toward measures that appeared to punish individuals because they were homeless or unemployed— that is, because of their status rather than conduct.
In 1972, the court struck down vagrancy laws as too vague to be constitutional, effectively giving police too much discretion to decide who was lawfully standing on a street corner and who was illegally prowling, loitering or, as a Jacksonville, Fla., ordinance put it, “nightwalking.”
The court took four other cases on Friday, including a labor dispute between Star-bucks and workers seeking to organize at a Memphis, Tenn., coffee shop. In 2022, Starbucks fired seven employees who helped stage an after-hours media event at the store. Federal courts ordered the company to reinstate the employees while the National Labor Relations Board weighed an unfair labor practice charge against the coffee retailer. The Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, found that by firing leaders of the organizing drive, Starbucks interfered with employees’ unionization rights, leading other workers to fear retaliation if they supported the effort. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Starbucks argues that courts must consider additional factors before issuing such temporary orders. The employees ultimately voted 11-3 in favor of unionizing.
Los Angeles city employees cleaned up an encampment as homeless people moved into temporary housing in October. JAE C. HONG/ ASSOCIATED PRESS
