California leaders take sides in monumental Supreme Court case on homelessness

Read on to find out where many of the most important stakeholders in the homelessness crisis stand on homeless encampments. 

What’s at stake in these Supreme Court arguments

The case, Johnson v. Grants Pass, stems from a 2018 lawsuit challenging an ordinance approved by the small city in Southern Oregon that essentially made it illegal for homeless residents to camp on all public property throughout the city.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case Monday, to determine if the ordinance violates the 8th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment to penalize someone for camping if they have nowhere else to go. 

“This is the most important Supreme Court case about homelessness in at least 40 years, and the results will be tremendous,” Jesse Rabinowitz, communications and campaign director of the National Homelessness Law Center, said during a media call.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals already has ruled in the Grants Pass case, and in a prior case (Martin v. Boise) that cities cannot punish someone for camping if that person has no other shelter. Grants Pass has asked the Supreme Court to overturn both prior rulings. 

Since the Ninth Circuit first weighed in, numerous California cities have been sued over their efforts to remove homeless camps. Judges have delayed or halted efforts in several places, including San Francisco, Sacramento, Chico and San Rafael. On Tuesday, California Democrats voted to kill a bill that would have prohibited encampments near schools and other areas statewide.

More than three dozen elected officials and organizations have weighed in on the Grants Pass case. 

Taking the pro-enforcement side

Those on this side argue that by restricting the enforcement of anti-camping ordinances, the courts have made it impossible for cities to lessen the harm encampments do to neighborhoods. They also argue the prior rulings — which they want overturned — are confusing and too hard to follow. 

• California State Sheriffs’ Association and California Police Chiefs Association: Local governments now have little or no power to enforce rules when it comes to homeless residents, “leading to an explosion of encampments throughout the state of California.” 
• California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities: The courts have become “micromanagers” of homelessness policy. Those decisions instead should be left up to cities and counties.
• California Republican Reps. Kevin Kiley of Rocklin, Doug LaMalfa of Yuba City, Tom McClintock of El Dorado Hills, Jay Obernolte of Hesperla and Darrell Issa of Temecula: “Statistics demonstrate that homeless encampments and crime go hand-in-hand,” and therefore the Ninth Circuit rulings have made it practically impossible for cities to combat crime.
• Venice Stakeholders Association: The rulings have created an “extreme imbalance between the rights of the homeless and those of Venice’s residents and business owners” who have to deal with encampments near their homes and businesses. 
• Office of the San Diego County District Attorney: San Diego recently passed an ordinance banning homeless encampments near schools, shelters and transit hubs and in parks, and, if shelter is available, on public sidewalks. The recent Ninth Circuit rulings “create uncertainty about the validity of the ordinance as a whole.” 
• California Chamber of Commerce: Employers have trouble hiring and keeping employees, and attracting customers, when their business is near a homeless encampment.
• Cicero Institute: The Cicero Institute, a public policy organization, drafted model anti-camping legislation that has been adopted in states including Texas and Utah. “Several jurisdictions have made great progress by enforcing public camping bans.”

Siding with homeless residents: Banning camping is inhumane

These groups and individuals support court rulings that limit enforcement of anti-camping ordinances. They argue punishing someone for camping when there isn’t enough shelter available — as is the case in most California cities — is wrong.

• California Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna of Fremont, Barbara Lee of Oakland and Linda Sanchez of Whittier: “Punishing human beings for existing when they have nowhere safe to rest is not only unconstitutional, it is also the least effective and most costly response a city can choose.”
• American Psychiatric Association and the National Alliance on Mental Illness: For unhoused people with severe mental illness, being approached by police for violating a camping ban could turn into a deadly altercation. People with untreated mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement than those without a mental illness.
• National Homelessness Law Center: The Grants Pass ordinance is just as morally and legally wrong as Jim Crow Laws and “anti-Okie” laws that discriminated against refugees migrating into California during the Dust Bowl.
• 57 social scientists who have published research on homelessness: Research shows that punishing people for camping negatively impacts their physical and mental health, exacerbates the spread of disease and prolongs homelessness by making it harder for them to get out of debt, find jobs and access housing and other services.
• American Civil Liberties Union: The Grants Pass ordinance punishes people for “unavoidable, life-sustaining, and fundamentally human acts.”
• National Coalition of Men: The court should consider whether Grants Pass is discriminating against a protected class by targeting unsheltered homeless people in its anti-camping ordinance.