Background:
The United States is facing a growing homelessness crisis, with an estimated 181,000 unhoused individuals in California alone. In response to this crisis, cities across the Bay Area and the West have been moving to clear homeless encampments from public property. However, federal court rulings since 2018 have prevented local governments from arresting or fining people for living on the street if they have nowhere else to go.
Supreme Court Case:
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for an appeal challenging these rulings. The case, brought by the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, centers on the question of whether broad no-camping bans amount to cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The court’s three liberal justices seemed inclined to deny the city’s appeal, while the conservative majority appeared sympathetic to the notion that such policy decisions should be left to local officials.
Implications for California:
A ruling in favor of the city could have sweeping implications for how cities nationwide respond to homelessness. California officials are anxiously awaiting the outcome of the case, as it could give them more flexibility to clear encampments and address the crisis. However, homeless advocates argue that such a ruling would lead to increased criminalization of homelessness and inhumane sweeps.
Other Perspectives:
San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan has called for more flexibility in dealing with encampments, explaining that the city lacks legal clarity to require everyone to come in off the streets. However, he emphasizes that sweeps alone are not a workable solution and that cities need to provide basic shelter and treatment options.
Homeless advocates and civil rights groups have criticized the appeal, arguing that it deflects responsibility for alleviating homelessness and exacerbates the need for affordable housing. They plan to continue organizing to protect the most vulnerable members of their communities and uplift housing as a human right.
