“Shelter or Jail?” Supreme Court Faces Outrage Over Homeless Criminalization

This April, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a case regarding methods cities can use to manage the homeless population. The question is whether cities have the authority to impose fines or incarcerate individuals for sleeping outdoors when there are no available shelters. 

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Labeled Criminalization of Homelessness Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The issue of criminalizing homelessness has been previously addressed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which labeled such actions as “cruel and unusual punishment.” The upcoming case challenges this interpretation.

Homeless Population on the Rise, Cities and States Need Management Tools 

In 2019, the Supreme Court declined to hear a related case regarding the criminalization of homelessness. Since that time, the homeless population has continued to increase, causing significant problems for states and localities, especially in urban areas with high costs of living and a reliance on tourism and high-earner residents.

Residents and Business Owners Assert Rights to Public Safety and Sanitation

Many residents in such areas are no longer willing to put up with the inconveniences and undesirable consequences that accompany homelessness, namely public safety issues resulting from dangerous environments.

Decreased Residency and Tax Base Affects Law Enforcement, Social Services Funding

Businesses are moving out, and urban centers are hollowing in certain affected regions. This leads to decreased revenue for localities to fund law enforcement and provide services and social safety nets to those needing homes.

Leaders Fear Retribution at Voting Booth If Unable to Improve Situation

The increase in homeless encampments, partially due to a lack of shelters or the strict requirements some shelters have, has become politically significant as residents are unhappy with their legislators and potentially seek retribution at the voting booth.

2018 Grants Pass, Oregon Case Reaches the High Court

The case that made it to the highest court involves the community of Grants Pass, Oregon, where local homeless individuals claim the city unlawfully attempted to evict them by prohibiting sleeping bags, stoves, and other sleeping aids in public areas.

Challenge to City’s Efforts to Penalize Homeless Status

The Grants Pass legal battle, initiated in 2018, underscores a broader national crisis of increasing homelessness rates. It challenges the city’s efforts to penalize individuals for their unavoidable homeless status. Penalization is also essentially a token legal action, as people experiencing homelessness often cannot pay fees and fines.

Leaders Restricted in How to Address Divergent Needs of Population

The 9th Circuit’s support for the homeless in this case, as well as in a landmark 2018 decision from Boise, Idaho, has sparked a debate over the reach of such rulings, particularly concerning the distinction between criminal and civil penalties.

Numerous Local and State Authorities Support Grants Pass Appeal

Grants Pass’s appeal to the Supreme Court has gathered backing from numerous local and state authorities, advocating for a review due to the legal and practical challenges posed by the current rulings. These officials argue that the rulings have significantly hindered their ability to address the homelessness crisis effectively, citing public health and safety concerns associated with large encampments.

Court May Provide Clarity on Rulings

Legal experts and city officials are calling for clarity on the rulings, debating the adequacy of shelter provisions and the practicality of current interpretations that seem to mandate unrealistic shelter capacities. 

City Leaders Urge Balanced Approach, Respecting Homeless Population and Public Safety

City leaders emphasize the need for a balanced approach that respects public spaces while providing inclusive, compassionate solutions for those without housing who are forced to sleep outside.

Homeless Advocates Claim Cities Have Authority to Address Encampments

Conversely, advocates for people without housing argue that punitive measures do not address the root causes of homelessness. They suggest that cities have the authority to manage encampments without resorting to criminalization. 

Advocates Claim Punitive Measures Add Insult to Injury

Advocates for those experiencing homelessness stress that addressing the underlying issues of housing affordability and availability is crucial, cautioning against policies that further marginalize the homeless population.

Implications for City Policies Towards Homelessness Nationwide

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this case, the outcome could have significant implications for city policies toward homelessness, spotlighting the ongoing challenges of housing affordability and the complex dynamics of providing humane and practical solutions for the homeless population.