Congress has cut federal funding for public media — a $3.4 million loss for LAist. We count on readers like you to protect our nonprofit newsroom. Become a monthly member and sustain local journalism.
Cheers and jeers in SoCal to Supreme Court ruling that opens door to wider anti-camping laws

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.”
As Editor-in-Chief of our newsroom, I’m extremely proud of the work our top-notch journalists are doing here at LAist. We’re doing more hard-hitting watchdog journalism than ever before — powerful reporting on the economy, elections, climate and the homelessness crisis that is making a difference in your lives. At the same time, it’s never been more difficult to maintain a paywall-free, independent news source that informs, inspires, and engages everyone.
Simply put, we cannot do this essential work without your help. Federal funding for public media has been clawed back by Congress and that means LAist has lost $3.4 million in federal funding over the next two years. So we’re asking for your help. LAist has been there for you and we’re asking you to be here for us.
We rely on donations from readers like you to stay independent, which keeps our nonprofit newsroom strong and accountable to you.
No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, press freedom is at the core of keeping our nation free and fair. And as the landscape of free press changes, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust, but the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news from our community.
Please take action today to support your trusted source for local news with a donation that makes sense for your budget.
Thank you for your generous support and believing in independent news.

-
People moving to Los Angeles are regularly baffled by the region’s refrigerator-less apartments. They’ll soon be a thing of the past.
-
Experts say students shouldn't readily forgo federal aid. But a California-only program may be a good alternative in some cases.
-
The program is for customers in communities that may not be able to afford turf removal or water-saving upgrades.
-
More than half of sales through September have been to corporate developers. Grassroots community efforts continue to work to combat the trend.
-
The bill would increase penalties for metal recyclers who possess or purchase metal used in public infrastructure.
-
The new ordinance applies to certain grocers operating in the city and has led to some self-checkout lanes to shutter.