San Francisco Plans to Enforce Homeless Camping Ban After Supreme Court Ruling | KQED

“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So maybe the public policy responses required to address it,” he wrote. “Yes, people will disagree over which policy responses are best. … But in our democracy, that is their right. Nor can a handful of federal judges begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent, wrote that laws like the one at issue here punish people who don’t have access to shelter, amounting to cruel and unusual punishment. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined her dissent.

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” Sotomayor wrote. “For some people, sleeping outside is their only option.”

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion.

For advocates, the ruling came as a crushing blow after years of fighting local governments’ approach to addressing the homelessness crisis. Jesse Rabinowitz, campaign and communications director at the National Homelessness Law Center, called the ruling “inhumane” and warned it would worsen homelessness.

“Cities are now even more empowered to neglect proven housing-based solutions and to arrest or fine those with no choice but to sleep outdoors,” he said in a statement. “While we are disappointed, we are not surprised that this Supreme Court ruled against the interests of our poorest neighbors.”

National Alliance to End Homelessness CEO Ann Oliva struck a similar tone. The ruling would undermine efforts to solve street homelessness, she said, by removing a requirement on the part of local governments to provide an alternative.

“This decision sets a dangerous precedent that will cause undue harm to people experiencing homelessness and give free rein to local officials who prefer pointless and expensive arrests and imprisonment rather than real solutions,” she said in a statement.

Others, however, who had argued the lower court’s ruling tied the hands of local governments to respond to a serious public health crisis lauded the decision. In a statement on Friday, Gov. Gavin Newsom said the ruling opens the door to “common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities.”

“Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court provides state and local officials the definitive authority to implement and enforce policies to clear unsafe encampments from our streets,” he wrote. “This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years.”

California Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones (R-San Diego) joined Newsom in his assessment, adding that the decision was not about criminalizing homelessness but about ensuring public safety.

“Californians should not have to tolerate the encampments that have taken over our communities,” he said in a statement. “With this decision, Democrat politicians can no longer justify allowing this severe public health and safety crisis to persist on our streets. It’s time to clean up California.”

State and city leaders under pressure to reduce homelessness had blamed the 9th Circuit ruling for stymieing their efforts to clear encampments. Officials across the political map, including California Newsom (PDF), the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco and a group of 20 conservative-led states (PDF), were among those who encouraged the Supreme Court to take up the case.

In their brief before the court, lawyers for the city of Grants Pass argued its policies, which include fines and short jail stints for camping on public property, don’t violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments and that the courts have overstepped, stripping local governments of their autonomy and limiting their ability to reduce street homelessness.

Attorneys and advocates for the unhoused Grants Pass residents argued the lower courts’ rulings allowed cities leeway to regulate encampments and even clear them — but not to ban camps outright. They argued that camping bans and similar policies are expensive and counterproductive because they disrupt connections to services, erode trust in law enforcement and create additional obstacles to finding housing and employment.

More than 80 amicus briefs were filed in the case, about evenly split in their support for the two parties.

The attorneys general of 24 conservative states, national conservative legal groups like the Cicero Institute, and the California sheriffs and police associations were among those who weighed in on behalf of Grants Pass.

Support for the unhoused residents came from the ACLU, several California-based nonprofits and the American Psychiatric Association, among others.

Some parties, including the Biden administration (PDF), Newsom and San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, filed briefs in the case but didn’t back either party, asking instead for clarity about how to interpret the lower courts’ rulings.

The decision will have significant implications for San Francisco, where a lawsuit over the city’s homelessness policies has been on pause since February, pending the Supreme Court’s ruling.

A district court magistrate relied on the 9th Circuit’s ruling in this case for an injunction restricting camp clearings.

“San Francisco has and will continue to take a compassionate, services-first approach to addressing our homelessness crisis,” Chiu said in a statement on Friday. “It will take time to analyze this decision and chart a path forward to change policies on the ground and ensure our litigation catches up with the Supreme Court’s decision today.”

Lawyers for the unhoused residents and advocates who filed suit against the city denounced the outcome but said it would not derail their case, emphasizing that only one of the 13 claims in the lawsuit, Coalition on Homelessness v. City of San Francisco, would be affected by the decision. The suit accuses the city of violating unhoused residents’ rights by destroying their property and failing to provide shelter accommodations appropriate for people with disabilities.

“We will move forward with making sure that San Francisco follows its own policies and upholds the constitutional rights of our unhoused neighbors,” said the plaintiffs’ attorney, Nisha Kashyap, Program Director of Racial Justice at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. “Those claims are unaffected by [the Supreme Court’s] decision and can and will proceed.”

The lawsuit is currently expected to go to trial next May.

Breed said the city has been preparing for potential outcomes and would adjust its policies to reflect the ruling. Staff will keep making offers of shelter but wouldn’t allow people who turn them down to stay put, the mayor said.

“It’s not healthy, safe, or compassionate for people on the street, and it’s not acceptable for our neighborhoods,” she said.

Ed Johnson, the litigation director at The Oregon Law Center who filed the Grants Pass suit, said he planned to pursue other means of defending unhoused people against criminalization, including through individual claims, group challenges or class action lawsuits.

“There are many legal arguments that can be brought on behalf of homeless individuals who are being punished for being the victims of our failed housing policies,” he said.