By Jayden Park
On July 13, 2017, plaintiffs Robert Marin, Lawrence Lee Smith, Robert Anderson, and et al. filed an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concerning 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871).
The plaintiffs in the appeal to the Ninth Circuit argued that the statute prohibiting sleeping outside against homeless individuals with no access to alternative shelters was cruel and should not be enforced, citing shelters like the “Sanctuary” and the BRM, which are often full, often leaving homeless individuals to seek shelter in areas like parking lots and stores. Every plaintiff personally experienced the “cruelty” of the law—they were often barred from said shelters and forced to sleep outside, and consequently, often had to pay fines or face legal issues.
Due to recurring events that the plaintiffs deemed cruel and abusive, the plaintiffs filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho in October of 2009. All plaintiffs alleged that their previous citations under the Camping Ordinance and the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment, seeking injunctive and retrospective relief for said violations. In that case, the Ninth Circuit held that Cruel and Unusual Punishments prevent cities from criminalizing unsheltered individuals unless the person has access to shelter. The appeal above is referred to as the Martin v. City of Boise case, which would soon be the basis for the Grants Pass v. Johnson case this year.
In the Grants Pass v. Johnson case, the Supreme Court sided with Grants Pass on a 6-3 decision, concluding that it was illegal for homeless residents to camp on all public property, reversing the decision made in the Martin v. Boise trial. This reversal would have major implications for how California leaders approach homelessness–currently, law enforcement is increasing crackdowns on homeless encampments. However, this was quick to face public criticism.
Jesse Rabinowitz, a spokesperson for the National Homelessness Law Center, in contention with the court decision, said in a statement, “Arresting or fining people for trying to survive is expensive, counterproductive, and cruel. While we are enraged, we are not surprised that this Court has again put the needs of the rich and powerful before the needs of everyday people struggling to get by.” Additionally, California Governor Gavin Newsom wrote to his friend that “Hindering cities’ efforts to help their unhoused populations is as inhumane as it is unworkable.”
On another note, the decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson has also faced criticism for worsening the homelessness crisis. While the number of people sleeping outside in San Francisco dropped to less than 3,000, the lowest in a decade, homelessness has grown by 7%. However, while the homelessness epidemic has somewhat been exacerbated, several measures by authorities have been made to provide shelters. Specifically, SF has added 1,800 emergency shelter beds and 5,000 permanent supportive housing units, an increase by more than 50% over the past six years. Additionally, funds from a 2018 wealth tax have tripled the annual budget of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing from $300 million in 2018 to $850 million this year.
References:
1. Kendall, M. (2024, September 12). No sleeping bags, keep moving: California cities increase crackdown on homeless encampments. CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/09/camping-ban-ordinances/
2. Kendall, M. (2024, June 28). Supreme Court gives cities in California and beyond more power to crack down on homeless camps. CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/06/california-homeless-camps-grants-pass-ruling/
3. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (2018, September 4). Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/04/15-35845.pdf
4. Supreme Court of the United States. (2024, January 12). 23-175 CITY OF GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/23-00175qp.pdf
5. U.S. Supreme Court. (2023). Docket No. 23-175. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-175.html