The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to allow fines and arrests for individuals sleeping on public streets has ignited major cleanups of homeless encampments in California cities.
At a Glance
- California officials are taking aggressive action on homelessness following a Supreme Court ruling in June.
- The ruling allows cities to enforce fines and make arrests for public camping and sleeping outdoors.
- The Supreme Court’s ruling overturned a previous decision that had favored homeless individuals in Grants Pass, Oregon.
- Governor Gavin Newsom welcomed the ruling and issued an executive order urging local governments to develop compassionate policies for managing encampments.
- Critics, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, argue that criminalizing homelessness is not a viable solution and call for more housing and supportive services.
California Cities Intensify Homeless Encampment Cleanups
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark decision in June, granted cities the power to enforce ordinances that permit fines and arrests for public camping and sleeping outdoors. Since then, California cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco have launched aggressive measures to address the long-standing issue of visible street homelessness. The ruling paves the way for cities to implement policies aimed at reducing the number of encampments cluttering public spaces.
This unprecedented move came after the Supreme Court overturned a previous decision that had protected homeless individuals in Grants Pass, Oregon. California has over 181,000 homeless individuals as of 2023, making up nearly one-third of the nation’s unhoused population. In response, Governor Gavin Newsom expressed support for the ruling and issued an executive order to local governments to adopt more compassionate and effective management of homeless encampments.
Policy Shifts and Public Reactions
Governor Gavin Newsom signed two new laws aiming to expedite the housing solutions for the unhoused. One law facilitates placing unhoused individuals into hotels, while the other speeds up the construction of junior accessory dwelling units. Despite this, critics argue that these efforts merely scratch the surface of a multi-faceted issue. Mayor London Breed of San Francisco has voiced her support for the decision, mentioning the necessity for being more assertive in addressing street homelessness, particularly amid her reelection campaign.
“This decision,” Mayor London Breed told a news conference, “has really provided us with clarity that we will use in order to be a lot more aggressive with people who are choosing to stay on the streets of San Francisco — especially when we’re offering them help.”
However, some California cities have already begun to utilize this newfound authority to impose stricter regulations on homeless encampments. For instance, San Diego recently passed an ordinance banning camping on streets and sidewalks if shelter beds are available. Meanwhile, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis have raised concerns about the ruling, emphasizing the need for supportive services and housing rather than punitive measures to address homelessness.
The Broader Implications
The ruling has also stirred heated debates about ethics and human rights. Critics argue that criminalizing homelessness exacerbates the crisis rather than solving it. Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness, expressed concern that the ruling removes crucial protections for those living in encampments. As homelessness remains a complex issue with no single solution, interim housing solutions must be prioritized while permanent housing is developed.
Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness, expressed concern that the ruling exacerbates the homelessness crisis by removing protections for those living in
Additionally, many democratic officials have unexpected allies in their call for stricter enforcement against homeless encampments, with some conservative groups lauding the decision as a necessity for public safety and sanitation. However, the homeless crisis is a costly challenge for taxpayers, with chronic homelessness costing an average of $35,578 per year per individual.
Legal Perspectives and Future Actions
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, stated that the Eighth Amendment does not grant federal judges primary responsibility for addressing homelessness. His opinion underscores the complex nature of homelessness and the various public policy responses that should be tailored to address it. The case, Grants Pass v. Johnson, ended in a 6-3 decision supporting the city of Grants Pass, Oregon.
“Homelessness is complex,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, writing for the majority. “Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, emphasizing the harsh choices the ruling leaves for vulnerable people. As cities move forward with the decision, the hope is for a balanced approach that addresses public safety and sanitation while ensuring humane and supportive solutions are provided to the homeless.
Groups such as the League of California Cities and the California Chamber of Commerce have expressed support for the decision, making a case for the removal of unsafe encampments to ensure public safety and sanitation in communities affected by high homelessness rates.
