The high court, in a 6–3 vote, overturned a Ninth Circuit decision that had blocked enforcement of the local ordinance. In doing so, the majority found that the law banning homeless camping does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
Prior to the June 28 ruling, a Ninth Circuit appeals court injunction against sweeps and clearances was the law of the land in nine states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
Advocates for the homeless were quick to denounce the Supreme Court ruling and to vow further legal challenges to what they call punitive and unconstitutional policies toward the unhoused population, while others acknowledged the need for decisive action in a long-running crisis.
“Cities should not punish people for being poor,” Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness, which sued the city of San Francisco to stop sweeps and arrests, said in a statement.
Double-Edged Sword
Zac Clark, executive director of the HomeMore Project, a San Francisco nonprofit that seeks to find solutions to the homelessness crisis, said that the Supreme Court ruling did not surprise him.Mr. Clark said the consequences of the ruling will be something of a double-edged sword. It may ease the heavy concentration of homeless people in some western jurisdictions and cities, as many decide to move to places outside the scope of Grants Pass, Oregon, and the new ruling against it.
At present, about two-thirds of California’s homeless population of approximately 180,000 are concentrated in six counties, namely Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Clara, Alameda, Sacramento, and San Francisco, Mr. Clark told The Epoch Times.
The official tallies of the homeless in those counties are likely to decrease as homeless people leave or end up in jail as a result of sweeps, and hence are no longer counted as living undomiciled on the streets, he said.
While some residents obviously will welcome the perception that homelessness is no longer out of control and that their streets are safer and more orderly, Mr. Clark does not see this as an unmixed blessing.
“This will further the polarization of how homelessness is addressed, with two entirely different approaches—criminalization for some cities and supportive social services for other cities,” Mr. Clark said.
“The problem with this ruling is that a significant number of people who are homeless have been in and out of our carceral system already. In my opinion, this is not productive for people experiencing homelessness, because of economic factors such as loss of housing, unemployment, et cetera,” he said.
Ms. Friedenbach concurred, noting in her organization’s official statement that the consequences of being arrested and having a criminal record and/or outstanding warrants or unpaid court fines will make it even more difficult for homeless people to get jobs and find long-term housing.
She thinks the Supreme Court ruling will help perpetuate the very problem it supposedly addresses.
But Mr. Clark said he does see a bright side given that municipalities are now likely to use the Supreme Court ruling to force severely mentally ill and substance-abusing homeless people into treatment that they badly need. Some advocates even support the criminalization of substance abuse because it has required them to undergo treatment, and with hindsight they came to understand that this was exactly what they needed, he said.
Mr. Clark said he questioned whether the Supreme Court ruling will have the far-reaching effects that some advocates fear, given that some cities simply lack the will or resources to handle much higher prosecution caseloads that will ultimately help perpetuate homelessness in the long term.
“I do believe that the Grants Pass ruling will have a net negative effect for addressing homelessness. It is a distraction and likely a mechanism that politicians will use to cover up the issue in their areas,” he said.
Others see benefits to the decision, not least because of how exasperated many urban residents have grown with rampant homelessness and all its effects on the quality of life.
Sean Kennedy, executive director of the Coalition for Law Order & Safety, a public policy organization based in Glen Allen, Virginia, pointed to the example of a University of California-San Francisco dean who grew so frustrated with the city’s failure to remove homeless tents from the sidewalk that he applied a novel interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act to make the case that disabled students weren’t able to get to class unless the city cleared the tents.
In another case, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti used emergency COVID-19 measures to argue, in an amicus brief in the case of Martin v. Boise, for the necessity of clearing homeless camps.
Mr. Kennedy said he favors strong measures to deal with the crisis, or as he put it, tough love. He criticized what he saw as the naive view that the homeless are making knowing and intelligent decisions deserving of understanding and respect from others.
Many people living on the street are so mentally ill or so severely addicted that they must receive treatment, and to imagine that living on the street is, for them, a defensible lifestyle choice is dangerously deluded, he said.
“They need help, but they aren’t always equipped to ask for it. An apartment and debit card don’t cure schizophrenia or heroin addiction,” Mr. Kennedy told The Epoch Times.
“The severely mentally ill and addicted should, in some circumstances, be compelled into treatment—including involuntary commitment like asylums.”
