Big victory in U.S. Supreme Court:
Grants Pass ruling gives cities tools to clean up homeless camps
By Kerry Jackson | July 12, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 28 Grants Pass v. Johnson ruling set off a round of celebrations and grumbling that typically occur when any court opinion is issued. Once that rhetoric is spent, though, local governments will have to decide how the decision affects them. Are they going to aggressively shut down homeless encampments or change nothing? The direction each takes will carry short- and long-term consequences. But at least now the choice is theirs.
In its 6-3 decision, the court ruled that the enforcement of “laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.” In the 2018 Martin v. Boise ruling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals claimed that local anti-camping ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment – and outlawed them unless cities first have enough shelter beds to house these homeless campers.
In overturning Boise, the court allowed municipalities and counties to remove the homeless camps that have taken over so many public spaces in California and the rest of the West Coast. Some are ready to move ahead with their plans without delay. The reactions did not always line up along partisan lines.
“The Supreme Court’s decision today allows the county of Orange and our impacted cities to enhance efforts to move people from unsafe encampments to shelter, treatment, wraparound care, and ultimately permanent supportive housing,” Democratic Supervisor Katrina Foley said in a statement.
Huntington Beach, with its conservative majority, called the ruling “a big win for cities, for local control,” while Will O’Neill, the GOP mayor of Newport Beach, said he expects “to see changes in our municipal code that would align with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.” Orange County officials in a number of other cities were just as pleased.
The reaction in Sacramento, however, was somewhat muted. Democratic Mayor Darrell Steinberg said the ruling “would not change the city’s ‘balanced, compassionate approach’ toward homeless people,” the Sacramento Bee reported. Yet at the same time, says the Bee, the city and county of Sacramento “adopted ordinances in 2022 that allow officers to move and fine people even if no shelter beds are available – and they have been exercising the law.”
Steinberg credited “our strategy” of “combining more shelter, housing, and services with an insistence that people cannot live in large encampments and violate ordinances protecting sidewalks, parks and other critical spaces” for a decline in the unsheltered homelessness population between 2022 and 2024. We’ll have to wait and watch what happens now in the capital city because Steinberg sounds like he’s playing both sides.
Read the Pacific Research Institute’s amicus brief in Grants Pass v. Johnson.
Read the Free Cities Center booklet on housing and homelessness, “Giving Housing Supply a Boost.”
Los Angeles’ Democratic Mayor Karen Bass was not nearly as opaque. She called the ruling “disappointing” and said it “must not be used as an excuse for cities across the country to attempt to arrest their way out of this problem or hide the homelessness crisis in neighboring cities or in jail.”
She stands behind the “Housing First” approach, which focuses on building new permanent housing before removing the homeless from public spaces. That approach has failed given its costs – as much as $1 million per unit in Los Angeles. It also fails to offer necessary social services for the majority of homeless people who have addiction and mental-health issues.
Bass’ San Francisco counterpart, Democratic Mayor London Breed, reacted more like Orange County officials. She said the ruling will “help cities like San Francisco manage our public spaces more effectively and efficiently.” And she added, “We need to be able to enforce our laws, especially to prevent long-term encampments.”
Maybe Breed’s more aggressive response has to be a reflection of that city’s growing desperation (and a coming mayoral election where homelessness is a top issue). With its highly visible homelessness, a nasty reputation for property crime and the continued loss of businesses, the city has become a blueprint for how not to run a city. Its once-glowing reputation has been soiled.
To the south, San Diego’s Democratic Mayor Todd Gloria said he appreciated the “much-needed clarity” the ruling provided. But he made it clear that “it will not change our strategy on homelessness.”
A year ago, San Diego’s anti-street camping ordinance went into effect. It bars the homeless from pitching tents within two blocks of schools, homeless shelters, “any open space, waterway, or banks of a waterway” and “any transit hub, on any trolley platform, or along any trolley tracks.” The homeless are also forbidden from camping “in any park where the city manager determines there is a substantial public health and safety risk.”
Anaheim can be found somewhere in the middle of these reactions. Spokesman Mike Lyster said the ruling won’t “change things dramatically day-to-day” but it could give the city added leverage in the event of “extreme cases.”
While the court couldn’t please everyone, it did move the decisions back to local governments, where the court said such issues should be resolved. Oddly, though, local control is an open question in Oregon, where Grants Pass is located.
The Legislature codified the Boise decision, which held that “as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.” This means the city of 38,000 that brought the suit might not be free to use the court’s ruling to deal with its homeless population of about 600 – at least until the Legislature steps in.
There’s no reason to think local discussions and policy choices will be easy. Homelessness is a human tragedy that evokes a wide range of emotions. But in 2024, after years of patience have grown thin over the escalating problem, one thing is clear: Local governments have the court’s imprimatur to reopen their public spaces – but only if they choose to do so.
Kerry Jackson is the William Clement Fellow in California Reform at the Pacific Research Institute.
