Topline:
Southern California officials reacted strongly Friday to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively removes some legal protections for unhoused people who sleep on streets and in other public places when shelter beds are full.
Dueling perspectives: Some officials, like Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, slammed the decision, calling it both “surprising” and “disappointing.” She and others cautioned local governments against using jail time as a means to address homelessness. Others, like Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley, said they saw the high court's decision as a way to further push local governments to create more housing.
The backstory: This case began when the small city of Grants Pass, Oregon started fining unhoused people for using cardboard boxes, pillows and blankets to sleep in public, with possible jail time for repeat offenders. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to reverse a lower court opinion that found bans on sleeping in public unconstitutional.
Southern California officials reacted strongly Friday to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively removes some legal protections for unhoused people who sleep on streets and in other public places when shelter beds are full.
Some officials, like Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, slammed the decision, calling it both “surprising” and “disappointing.” She and others cautioned local governments against using jail time as a means to address homelessness.
Reaction to the ruling
“This ruling 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,” Bass said in a statement.
Lindsey Horvath, chair of the L.A. County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Commission, shared Bass' concerns, saying that the ruling “green lights the criminalization of homelessness.”
“We know what works in Los Angeles County — partnership, accountability, scrutinizing the status quo, and aligning all resources,” Horvath added in her statement. “It is not arrest. It is not pushing people from community to community.”
But others, like Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley, said they saw the high court's decision as a way to further push local governments to create more housing.
“In order to truly solve homelessness, enforcement must accompany an aggressive effort to build all types of housing opportunities from permanent supportive, affordable, and workforce housing,” Foley said.
What the decision does and doesn't mean
The decision, released by the federal court Friday morning, is expected to have broad implications for how cities like Los Angeles treat people experiencing homelessness. The justices ruled 6-3 to reverse a lower court opinion that found bans on sleeping in public unconstitutional.
Shayla Myers, senior attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, said that the topic was divisive across the board and that there were cascading consequences for criminalizing homelessness with anti-camping bans.
“We know after decades of research on this topic that ordinances that prevent people from sleeping outside when they have no place else to go does nothing to solve the homelessness crisis and in fact make[s] it worse,” Myers said in an Friday on AirTalk, LAist's public affairs show that airs on 89.3 FM.
Myers stressed that the ruling does not tell jurisdictions what they should do, but rather states that bans on sleeping in public don’t violate one part of the U.S. Constitution.
The backstory
This case began when the small city of Grants Pass, Oregon started fining unhoused people for using cardboard boxes, pillows and blankets to sleep in public, with possible jail time for repeat offenders. Lawyers representing unhoused people in the city challenged that policy, and lower courts agreed that the city’s ordinance was unconstitutional.
Advocates for the unhoused have agreed with lower court opinions holding that public camping bans amount to cruel and unusual punishment because they essentially criminalize the involuntary state of being homeless and needing somewhere to sleep.
A similar case in Boise, Idaho led to a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which applies to nine Western states including California.
Why it matters
Local governments have complained these restrictions leave them hamstrung in responding to growing encampments that they see as threats to public safety and health. Elected leaders in California have asked the Supreme Court for more leeway to fine and punish people living on public property.
In many ways, the decision aligns with desires from L.A. business leaders, who feel the status quo has led to chaos that threatens businesses in many neighborhoods.
The L.A. Chamber of Commerce and the Central City Association, two L.A. based business groups, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court saying: “Business owners are bearing the brunt of the homelessness crisis … Los Angeles businesses, customers, and workers should not be forced to endure the unsafe environments on their doorsteps while local governments’ reasonable efforts to help are thwarted and no end is in sight.”
