Sacramento mayor says ‘stakes are huge’ in Supreme Court case on homeless enforcement

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments Monday on what some are calling the most important case about homelessness in decades: Johnson v. Grants Pass.

The case comes from a 2018 lawsuit challenging an ordinance approved by the small city in Southern Oregon that made it illegal for unhoused residents to camp on public property in the city.

A ruling is not expected until June, but the case could have wide-ranging implications. State and local governments in California and across the Western United States say past court rulings restrict their ability to remove homeless encampments despite growing political pressure to do so. 

California leaders take sides in monumental Supreme Court case on homelessness

Meanwhile, advocates for unhoused residents say governments should not be able to clear camps without providing services such as housing or a safe shelter space.

To learn more about these implications, CapRadio’s Chris Nichols spoke with Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg about the case in advance of the court hearing. 

Steinberg was appointed in 2019 to lead Governor Gavin Newsom’s statewide Commission on Homelessness and Supportive Housing.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Interview highlights

Mayor, from your perspective, what are the stakes in this case?

There are huge stakes. And, frankly, I have some mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I do believe that the courts need to clarify the standard because both Grants Pass and [Martin v. Boise], I think leave a lot of ambiguity around whether cities can enforce [and] in what way. The law ought to be clarified to say that society through its governments have an obligation to offer people housing, shelter or the services that they need to get off the streets.

And at the same time when that offer is made in a real way, people should have an obligation to accept that help. Because the majority of the public is right in saying that it is not acceptable for people to be living on the sidewalk. These tent camps are not okay.

It sounds like you are looking for nuance from the court and not just a blanket ruling saying enforcement is fine?

Nuance in this era of ideology and polarization may be too much to ask. But yes, I am hopeful that the court will recognize that cities have an obligation to enforce our laws. And we do. And yet if it's only enforcement, especially when it comes to people living on public property, all we're doing is moving people. The public will rightfully ask, “Where are you moving people to?”

If the Supreme Court ultimately rules in favor of Grants Pass and says it is constitutional to penalize someone for camping on public property, do you expect in the short term to see enforcement ramp up in cities across California and the West, including here in Sacramento?

Well, of course, that would be the inevitable result. Here in Sacramento, at least as long as I'm mayor and I hope beyond, I will insist on that balance and the reciprocal rights and responsibilities [of local government]. When I started as mayor, we were funding less than 100 [homeless shelter] beds a night. We're now up to 1,350 and growing. 

We are not a health and human service agency nor a homeless service agency, but we have leaned in like never before. And if we're going to actually provide real relief not just to the people suffering on the streets, but to our neighborhoods and our business corridors, we are going to have to be able to offer people help. And then expect that they are going to accept it. 

And if not, then yes, there should be consequences to that and I don't mean people should be in jail, but people cannot stay in a camp on a sidewalk if we are able to offer them help. That's the kind of penalty that I think is reasonable. But only if we meet our obligation.

Contact CapRadio reporter Chris Nichols at [email protected]