| Advertisement |
Jan. 13 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider a case which might override local laws banning homeless encampments on public property. The high court on Friday indicated it will hear an appeal of a recent federal appellate court ruling holding the city of Grants Pass, Ore., can't fine or prosecute people for camping on public property when there are no alternative shelters available.
Advertisement
A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Sept. 28, 2022, ruled in favor of plaintiffs Gloria Johnson and John Logan in the class action against Grants Pass. Johnson and Logan contend the city's ordinances amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
Grants Pass officials enacted five ordinances against camping on public property. Those ordinances include anti-sleeping, anti-camping and park-exclusion rules that levy fines of several hundred dollars for each violation and enable the city to bar violators from all city properties upon repeat offenses.
If a homeless person were found on city property after being excluded, the city could prosecute that person for a criminal trespassing offense.
A prior Ninth Circuit appellate court ruling in Martin vs. City of Boise in 2018 ruled the Eighth Amendment "prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter."
The 2022 ruling by the Ninth Circuit panel cites the Martin vs. Boise case and ruled it's unconstitutional to "criminally punish involuntarily homeless persons for sleeping in public if there are no other public areas or appropriate shelters where those individuals can sleep."
The panel upheld a lower court ruling that the Grants Pass ordinances are unenforceable and the city couldn't stop people from "sleeping outside with rudimentary protection from the elements" or sleeping in their vehicles when the city has no other place for them to go.
That ruling narrowed the prior U.S. Circuit Court's injunction against enforcing the Grants Pass ordinances. The injunction only applies in situations where "involuntarily homeless persons" act to "protect themselves from the elements" when Grants Pass has no available shelter space.
The pending Supreme Court case and its eventual outcome would apply nationally in similar situations, which might nix similar ordinances in all U.S. states, territories and municipalities.
California is also facing a crisis of homelessness. Gov. Gavin Newsom in September filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to clarify that state and local governments can take "reasonable actions" to address the crisis and protect the safety of individuals living in encampments.
"California has invested billions to address homelessness, but rulings from the bench have tied the hands of state and local governments to address this issue," he said Friday. "The Supreme Court can now correct course and end the costly delays from lawsuits that have plagued our efforts to clear encampments and deliver services to those in need."
