PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Momentum is gathering in a homeless encampment case that will go before the U.S. Supreme Court next month and could have major implications for cities like nationwide homelessness has reached record levels.
Dozens of briefs have been filed in recent days, including by the Justice Department, members of Congress and attorneys general. They joined a growing number of Western state and local officials who filed ballots urging the justices to overturn a controversial lower court ruling that they say prevented them from dealing with homeless encampments.
In 2018, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals — whose jurisdiction includes nine western states — ruled that it was unconstitutional to punish people who are “involuntarily homeless” for sleeping outside if there aren’t enough shelter beds. His Martin v. Boyce decision found that this would violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Social justice advocates have long supported the decision based on the belief that homelessness should not be criminalized, although advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have yet to file briefs on the case. Many officials in the West, on the other hand, say the decision has prevented them from managing the growth of encampments on sidewalks, in parks and other public spaces.
The US experienced a dramatic increase of 12%. unemployment last year to the highest level on record, according to a federal report, as rents surged and fell in aid during the coronavirus pandemic combined to put housing out of reach for more Americans. About 653,000 people were homeless in the January 2023 census, the most since the country began using the annual current survey in 2007.
More than half of the people experiencing homelessness in the country are in four states: California and Washington, which fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, along with New York and Florida. About 28 percent of the nation’s homeless are estimated to be in California alone, according to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development report.
The case before the Supreme Court was brought by Grants Pass, a small town nestled in the mountains of southern Oregon, which is barred by court orders — citing Martin v. Boyce — from enforcing local ordinances that prohibit sleeping and camping in parks and on public property. In its petition, Grants Pass said it and other cities “are finding it difficult to respond to public encampments.”
The case has galvanized city, county and state officials from across the West, including Democrats and Republicans, and increasingly national officials.
In a brief filed Monday in support of neither side, the Justice Department said the 9th Circuit was correct in finding that ordinances punishing people for sleeping outside where there is insufficient space to shelter are unconstitutional, but “erred” in applying the ruling to all homeless people “without requiring a more specific inquiry into the circumstances of the persons to whom these ordinances may apply.”
“The court declined to decide what proof is necessary to establish that a person is involuntarily homeless. That was a mistake,” Justice Department officials, including Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristen Clark, wrote in the filing.
The Justice Department asked the justices to reverse the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling and send it back to the lower courts for review.
Also Monday, six members of the U.S. House of Representatives — including Congressman Cliff Benz, whose Oregon district includes Grants Pass, and five congressmen representing California — filed briefs in support of the petition. The lawmakers wrote that the 9th Circuit ruling “makes it virtually impossible” for municipalities to combat crime that can occur near encampments.
A coalition of 24 Republican attorneys general, led by Montana and Idaho, also recently endorsed the Grants Pass petition.
“The Ninth Circuit cannot solve homelessness and should not try. It is states and localities that have the local knowledge needed to address the problem, and it is states and localities that ultimately bear the costs of homelessness and homelessness policy,” they wrote.
Although the ACLU did not file a brief, its Northern California branch expressed concern about the case after the Supreme Court announced it would hear it in January, saying it could “reopen a definition of cruel and unusual punishment that protects Americans , housed and unhoused, from unconstitutional treatment in the criminal justice system.”
The justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments on April 22.
