The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling allows for more aggressive removals of homeless encampments

The court upheld Grants Pass’ ban on camping. Local governments can punish people who live outdoors.

By Nicole Santa Cruz

ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom investigating abuses of authority, is an independent newsroom. Subscribe to Dispatches, a weekly newsletter that highlights wrongdoing across the country.

Legal experts and advocates say the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision allowing cities to punish those who sleep in public if there are no alternatives will cause municipalities to take more aggressive measures to remove encampments. It may also mean throwing away more property belonging to homeless people.

In a 6-3 decision on Friday, the conservative majority upheld Grants’s camping ban. They found that laws criminalizing sleeping or lying down in public places did not violate the Eighth Amendment.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a letter he wrote for the majority, stated that the state and local authorities should be the ones to make decisions regarding homelessness. The causes of homelessness are many. “

This case raises the question, “Does Eighth Amendment give federal judges primary responsibility for assessing these causes and devising those responses?” ” He wrote it doesn’t.

Gorsuch wrote in his opinion that a lower-court decision that prohibited cities from criminalizing the conduct of “involuntarily homeless people” forced them to consider what it meant to have nowhere to live and what type of shelter a municipality should provide. “

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that sleeping outdoors was a “biological necessity” for some people, and that there is a way to balance issues facing local governments with constitutional principles and humanity, as well as the needs of homeless individuals. They can either stay awake or be arrested. “

Sotomayor stated that criminalizing homelessness can “cause a destabilizing cascade of harm”. Sotomayor pointed out that when belongings are confiscated or taken from a person, they destroy important documents that may be needed to obtain housing or a job, or items that relate to work, such as bicycles or uniforms.

Advocates and experts said the ruling could lead more lawsuits regarding other constitutional rights. This includes disposing of properties when encampments have been removed. Legal claims about cities’ treatment toward homeless people focused on rights that protect from unreasonable searches and seizures, and guarantee due process under the Fourth and 14th Amendments.

Stephen Schnably, a professor of Law at the University of Miami has fought in court for the rights of homeless people.

Ann Oliva is CEO of National Alliance to End Homelessness. She stated that more cities banning camping could lead to an increase in law enforcement. The ruling could lead to property being lost. “

ProPublica reports on the effects of encampment removals. Albuquerque threw away personal belongings when removing homeless camps. This violated city policy and a court order that has been lifted. The people also spoke about important documents such as birth certificates and irreplaceable photos of their families.

ProPublica received reports from advocates and dozens of people that have experienced the same thing. They describe the way their belongings were destroyed during the encampment clearing.

Legal analysts say that this decision has practical implications, including the ability for local authorities to make arrests, issue citations and even sentence people to jail.

Donald Whitehead is the Executive Director of the National Coalition for the Homeless. He thinks that this will encourage communities to criminalize encampments and discourage policymakers to find new and innovative solutions to affordable housing. You can put them behind bars. “

Whitehead worries that the ruling will increase the vulnerability of homeless people to crime.

Many states have passed legislation to criminalize camping on public land.

A new Florida law which takes effect Oct. 1, prohibits counties and cities from allowing homeless people to sleep or camp in public areas. State’s Department of Children and Families must certify the designated camping area. Now, private citizens, business owners or the Attorney General of the state can sue the county or municipality if they do not comply with the law.

Andy Beshear, a Democrat from Kentucky who enacted Safer Kentucky Act, overrode Kentucky lawmakers’ veto. Andy Beshear, a Democrat who enacted the Safer Kentucky Act, was overruled by lawmakers in Kentucky.

Grants Pass has about 39,000 inhabitants. They asked for a Supreme Court hearing along with other cities and states. They claimed that a ruling by a lower court from 2018, Martin V. Boise, prevented cities in the West from responding to the increasing number of encampments.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court Grants Pass claimed that the status quo was harmful to local governments, residents and people who were homeless. Attorneys wrote “public camping laws” are a “critical (and constitutional) backstop” for stopping the growth of encampments.

A court has issued an injunction against attempts to enforce camping rules that are commonsense, even when coupled with shelter or other services.

Lawyers representing people who are homeless argue that the 9th Circuit ruling does not deny cities the right to remove encampments. They noted that Grants Pass had removed encampments “as it is its right” to do. The lawyers added that Western politicians have “chosen to” tolerate encampments rather than deal with the severe housing crisis.

Jesse Rabinowitz, the Communications Director of the National Homelessness Law Center is a spokesman for the organization. He stated that the Supreme Court’s decision empowers cities and states to “play a human Whac A-Mole game on a nationwide scale” and continue to do what they said they wanted to do in Grants Pass, which was to push people to another city. “

Bob Erlenbusch, a member in the National Coalition for the Homeless, has been fighting for the rights of homeless people for more than 40 years. Since the Martin v. Boise decision, he said, cities have found new ways of criminalizing homelessness and clearing out encampments.

Erlenbusch describes city workers from Sacramento, California, who use bulldozers and shovels to destroy property. “

In a brief filed for the Grants Pass case, Western Regional Advocacy Project, an organization run by street people, described the removal of winter camp in Denver where “people had lost food, sleeping bags and essential paperwork, clothing, tools and medications, identification and blankets, as well as clothing, blankets, and survival gear.” “

Sara Rankin, a law professor at Seattle University who has studied criminalization and the dehumanization of homeless people. She stated that the court decision on Friday would promote dehumanization. “Cities sweep at a reckless rate and have been doing so for years.” What will happen to the people, and how much more damage can they suffer? “