(Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)

Supreme Court lets stand ruling that protects homeless who sleep on sidewalk

The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a major case on homelessness, letting stand a ruling that protects homeless people’s right to sleep on the sidewalk or in public parks if no other shelter is available.

The justices without comment or a dissent said that they would not hear the case from Boise, Idaho, which challenged a ruling by a federal appeals court.

The outcome is a significant victory for homeless activists and a setback for city officials in California and other western states who argued the appeals court ruling undercut their authority to regulate encampments on the sidewalks.

Lawyers for the homeless had argued it was cruel and wrong to punish people who have nowhere else to sleep at night. They won a major victory last year when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prosecuting people for sleeping on the sidewalks violated the 8th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The appeals court ruling extended to California and eight other western states, and said a city ordinance “violates the 8th Amendment insofar as it imposes criminal sanctions against homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors on public property, when no alternative shelter is available to them.”

The legal case had arisen a decade before when Robert Martin and several other homeless people were given tickets or fines of between $25 and $75 for camping on the sidewalk. They then joined a lawsuit that challenged the punishments as unconstitutional.

A large group of West Coast cities including Los Angeles had urged the Supreme Court to hear the appeal in City of Boise vs. Martin.

They said the “creation of a de facto constitutional right to live on sidewalks and in parks will cripple the ability of more than 1,600 municipalities in the 9th Circuit to maintain the health and safety of their communities,” wrote lawyers for Boise.

“Nothing in the Constitution … requires cities to surrender their streets, sidewalks, parks, riverbeds and other public areas to vast encampments,” the lawyers said. The appeal was filed by Theane Evangelis and Ted Olson, partners at Gibson Dunn in Los Angeles.

A right to sleep on the sidewalk is not new for Los Angeles or city officials. In 2006, the 9th Circuit handed down a similar ruling that said the city may not enforce laws against sleeping in public places. Rather than appeal, the city negotiated a settlement with lawyers for the homeless in which it agreed to not enforce such laws from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m.

The Supreme Court has previously relied on the 8th Amendment to limit the punishment for some crimes, but it is rare for judges to strike down a criminal law itself as cruel and unusual punishment. The 9th Circuit cited a 1962 decision in Robinson vs. California which struck down part of a state law that “made the status of narcotic addiction a criminal offense.”

Judge Marsha Berzon said this principle extends to homelessness. “Just as the state may not criminalize the state of being homeless in public places,” she wrote, “the state may not criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless — namely sitting, lying or sleeping on the streets.”

Los Angeles City Atty. Michael Feuer had urged the court to hear the Boise case and review the 9th Circuit’s opinion. “The lack of clarity of the Boise decision, combined with its sweeping rationale, makes more difficult the efforts of Los Angeles to balance the needs of its homeless residents with the needs of everyone who uses our public spaces,” he said.

He questioned whether the city must have shelter available for all 36,000 homeless people “before taking enforcement action against a single unsheltered individual who refuses an available shelter bed in one of the city’s regional shelters, just because shelters at the opposite end of the city are full.”

Here’s what the decision means for California cities:

Q: What is Martin vs. City of Boise? A: It’s a landmark ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018. It arose from a lawsuit involving seven homeless people who were cited for camping on public property in Boise, Idaho. The federal appeals court said that prosecuting people for sleeping on the sidewalk when there are not enough shelter beds or housing was unconstitutional.

Q: How did this happen? A: The 2018 ruling in the Boise case essentially turned what was supposed to be a stopgap arrangement in Los Angeles into a sweeping and potentially open-ended curb on police powers. In 2007, the city of L.A. stopped putting people in jail for sleeping in the streets as part of a deal known as the Jones agreement, which halted police enforcement of laws barring encampments in public spaces until the city could build more housing for homeless people. That settlement came the year after a previous ruling from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that found L.A.’s sweeps of homeless encampments on skid row were cruel and unusual punishment. Then in 2018, the federal appeals court issued a similar ruling in the case out of Boise, setting up the proposed challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Q: Why is this a big deal for Los Angeles? A: It essentially leaves in place the status quo — meaning L.A. and other cities cannot prevent people from sleeping outdoors on public property when there aren’t enough shelter beds available. Los Angeles County has nearly 60,000 homeless people, most of them living on the streets in encampments, which pop up faster than city sanitation crews can dismantle them. The city and county, like much of California, where rents have skyrocketed, hasn’t been able to build housing or shelters fast enough to keep up with demand.

Q: Why does this matter? A: The vast majority of homeless people in Los Angeles and California live outside, which is increasingly leading to conflict in neighborhoods.

A recent poll conducted for the Los Angeles Times and the Los Angeles Business Council Institute found that a sizable majority of voters countywide think , despite court rulings and settlements limiting such involvement. The high court’s decision not to hear the Boise case all but assures these conflicts will continue. Times staff writers Gale Holland and Benjamin Oreskes contributed to this report.

By Erika D. Smith, Los Angeles Times

Bay Area NewsCalifornia

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

Advocates want more public notice before SF euthanizes an animal

Animal control officials say web posting proposal would eat up resources, change few outcomes

Republicans sue Newsom over vote-by-mail order for November election

By Laura Newberry Los Angeles Times Three Republican groups have sued Gov.… Continue reading

Krip-Hop Nation’s Leroy F. Moore Jr. is a born fighter

Pandemic won’t slow this artist, disability rights educator and activist

When should bars reopen?

San Francisco residents weigh in

Pier 45 warehouse goes up in flames

Four-alarm fire causes walls to collapse, threatens nearby historic ship

Most Read