Should cities be allowed to punish people for sleeping on the street?

What’s happening

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday in one of the most important cases in decades about homelessness that could drastically alter how cities across the country will deal with the problem.

The core legal question in the case, Grants Pass v. Johnson, is whether the Constitution prohibits punishing people for sleeping overnight in public spaces when they don’t have any other alternative. Right now, cities across the nation answer that question differently.

In most of the country, so-called camping bans, which empower local governments to break up homeless encampments and fine or jail people for sleeping in the streets, are permitted under the law. But in some western states, these bans are considered unconstitutional.

That disconnect stems in part from a 2018 decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Martin v. Boise, which found that issuing criminal penalties to the homeless violates the Constitution’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment. That decision barred the nine states under the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction — including California, Washington and Oregon — from punishing people for sleeping on the streets unless there are enough shelter beds available to accommodate them.

Over the past five years, cities in the western U.S., where the majority of the country’s unsheltered homeless population can be found, have been limited or blocked entirely from enforcing laws against sleeping in public spaces. One of those cities — Grants Pass, Ore. — has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit ruling, arguing that it has severely hampered its ability to respond to homelessness.

Why there’s debate

Advocates for overturning Martin v. Boise, including a number of high-profile Democrats on the West Coast, say criminal penalties are a critical tool for managing homelessness in a way that protects the unhoused and the people that live around them.

“There is no compassion in stepping over people in the streets,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration wrote in a legal brief in support of Grants Pass, adding well-meaning officials “have found themselves without options” for dealing with the often dirty and dangerous encampments that have taken root around their cities. Many conservatives go further, arguing that the court’s ruling effectively endorses homelessness and allows unhoused people to take over whole swaths of major cities while putting their rights ahead of the rights of ordinary citizens to safely walk the streets.

Homeless advocates, on the other hand, say it’s inhumane to punish someone for sleeping outside when they have no other option. They argue that camping bans effectively make it illegal to be homeless and make it even harder for people to get their lives on track. Many also make the case that the ruling creates plenty of room for cities to respond to homelessness as they please, they just need to invest the effort and resources to ensure there are plenty of shelter beds available first.

What’s next

Monday’s arguments ended without a clear indication of how the Supreme Court’s conservative majority intends to rule in the case, though most legal analysts say they appeared to be skeptical of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. A final decision in the case is expected in June.

Perspectives

The homeless have the same rights as everyone else

“The case … raises the fundamental question of whether homeless persons will be treated as equal citizens entitled to protection or punished as criminals simply because they lack a shelter over their heads.” — David H. Gans, Slate

Fines and jail won’t solve the problem, but they’re a crucial tool for managing it

“Restoring local power to ban camping in parks and on sidewalks will not solve a crisis rooted in poverty, addiction and untreated mental illness. But it will give governments tools to address the problem — and deprive them of excuses if they fail.” — Charles Lane, Washington Post

Punishing people for being homeless only makes them less likely to get themselves off the streets

“Criminalization is not a solution to homelessness. Arrests, fines, jail time and criminal records make it more difficult for individuals experiencing homelessness to access the affordable housing, health services, and employment necessary to exit homelessness.” — Jennifer Paradis, CT Mirror

Cities need to have the power to force people out of unsafe circumstances

“Why is it so controversial to say that it is simply bad for a person to live inside a homeless encampment? Would not the more compassionate route be to move them (even if by force) into a shelter, a recovery program, or, at the very least, a designated camping area that contains health and sanitation resources?” — Kayla Bartsch, National Review

Local leaders can free themselves from restrictions by providing the resources unhoused people need

“Current rulings do not stop city and state officials from getting homeless people out of encampments, or from providing the temporary and permanent housing and services that are the only way to reduce homelessness. They also don’t block limited enforcement as long as there are some places that homeless people can sleep outside or some available shelter for at least some homeless people.” — Editorial, Los Angeles Times

Cities must be allowed to make their street livable

“Most decent, hardworking people want clean sidewalks for getting to work and walking their kids to school. But cities are barred legally from cleaning up homeless encampments.” — Betsy McCaughey, New York Post

Without limits, local governments could end up in a race to see who can be the cruelest to unhoused people

“The current Supreme Court is generally extremely sympathetic to law enforcement, but even its conservative members may balk at allowing a city to criminalize inevitable acts by homeless people. Doing so could spark competition among cities to create the most punitive regime in hopes of effectively banishing homeless residents.” — Clare Pastore, The Conversation

Even far-left Democrats understand that coddling the homeless only makes things worse

“You know the homelessness problem in San Francisco must be bad if the city’s democratically elected leaders are finally willing to get tough on homeless encampments. It is too bad that Democrats in California need the conservative members of the Supreme Court to come to their rescue and free them from the crazy rulings of the leftist judges who control the 9th Circuit.” — Editorial, Washington Examiner