SCOTUS: Homeless people have a constitutional right to sleep on public property outdoors

[fleur-de-lisa]

Supreme Court Refuses to Revive City’s Outdoor-Sleeping Ban

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-refuses-to-revive-citys-outdoor-sleeping-ban?campaign=9B4A0578-2013-11EA-8AE6-81B54F017A06&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=lawdesk

The U.S. Supreme Court let stand a ruling that said homeless people have a constitutional right to sleep on public property outdoors if no other shelter is available to them.

The justices without comment on Monday turned away an appeal by Boise, Idaho, which said the federal appeals court ruling would leave cities “powerless” to address residents’ health and safety concerns.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Boise would be violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishments by enforcing criminal penalties under its anti-camping ordinance when its three homeless shelters are full.

“The state may not criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless -- namely sitting, lying, or sleeping on the streets,” the 9th Circuit said.

[MineralMan]

1. Good decision. They're right.

Of course, the ideal is for communities to provide safe, warm housing for homeless people. Still, some will not sleep in that housing, even if space is available. Those people still need to be able to sleep.

[marble falls]

2. Its sad commentary that this is actually a good decision. That Boise wants to make the homeless ...

disappear as opposed to homelessness and couch it in terms of somehow losing their obligation to "protect" the homeless shameful.

[MineralMan]

3. It's an obvious decision. It's too bad the question ever came up.

Many places don't like seeing homeless people sleeping outdoors. It makes them feel guilty. So, instead of providing shelter, some places take a different approach, hoping the homeless people will go somewhere else. Shame on such places!

There's a lot of spaces for the homeless here in the Twin Cities. Not enough, but a lot. Still, there are people who will not go to those sheltered spaces. They will sleep outdoors in the cold. Making that illegal solves nothing. Finding ways to help such people is the answer. We're working on that, but it's a difficult challenge. Meanwhile, there are programs that help the outdoor sleepers stay warm here.

We're not arresting them as though they committed a crime by needing to sleep.

[SoCalNative]

5. It's not that they don't provide shelter

It's that a good many homeless people, especially here in L.A., refuse the shelter when offered.

[MineralMan]

6. Yes, just as I said. There will always be such homeless people

who want to stay out of the shelters, for various reasons. They have to sleep, too. Criminalizing sleep is a bad idea, always.

This case was from Boise, ID. I don't know what their shelter system is like.

[More_Cowbell]

11. In this case, the shelters were full

I'm not sure what will happen when someone brings up the issue you just noted, which is that many homeless people spurn shelters.

[Hortensis]

21. :) It's brought up. Many people have always refused

shelters for any number of reasons ranging from paranoid fear of having their organs stolen, to convenience, to being near friends or family, to rational avoidance of crime. That reality is why this decision, effectively acknowledging their very right to exist, and without being chained to a cot somewhere, is needed.

[Beringia]

15. I think this ruling says is legal to sleep on streets when homeless shelters are full

It doesn't say it is okay when shelters are open.

[MineralMan]

17. Here's a statement from the court that makes it pretty clear:

“The state may not criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless -- namely sitting, lying, or sleeping on the streets,” the 9th Circuit said.

That's the bottom line, and the crux of their ruling.

[Beringia]

23. I don't think you can make that conclusion

(I don't have the time or expertise to research this, but I don't think it is legal to sleep on the street if the shelter has not declared itself full, unless the person has been ejected from the shelter from overstaying the time limit).


https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/04/15-35845.pdf


Turning to the merits, the panel held that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment precluded the enforcement of a statute prohibiting sleeping outside against homeless individuals with no access to alternative shelter. The panel held that, as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors,the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.


At last, we turn to the merits — does the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment preclude the enforcement of a statute prohibiting sleeping outside against homeless individuals with no access to alternative shelter? We hold that it does, for essentially the same reasons articulated in the now-vacated Jones opinion

That is, as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors,on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.

[MineralMan]

24. There are many factors involved in the "having a place to sleep."

Depending on the shelter, a person might be refused a spot if that person is intoxicated or has a history of creating problems at the shelter. Does that person then have a place to sleep? In other shelters, women are not admitted. In others still, women with children are not admitted. There are few shelters that accept families. Minors, too, are excluded from many shelters. Transgender persons are often rejected at shelters, too. There are also people who refuse to stay in a shelter due to past abuse or just plain uncontrollable anxiety.

In all of those cases, a law enforcement person has no way of knowing the circumstances that led a person to sleep outdoors. In every city of any size, there are people who sleep outdoors every night. Most often, if they choose an inconspicuous place to sleep, they will never be bothered by the police. If, however, they sleep where they can be seen by the public, complaints get called in and the police go and roust that person out of their sleep and either make them move on or arrest them.

The police, pretty much, don't go looking for sleepers at night. They don't go behind buildings, into secluded areas at parks, or pretty much anywhere that is more than about 25' from the door of their police cruiser. They just don't. So, most homeless who sleep outdoors find places to sleep where they won't be bothered. But not everyone.

This whole nonsense has to do with the public not liking to see poor people who are homeless. That makes them feel some sort of emotion, even if it is just annoyance. So, they call or complain or go to the city council meeting. They don't want to know that there are people sleeping outdoors with no other options. So, stupid laws get passed.

It's just not that simple.

[AllyCat]

46. This . Absolutely, this.

We cannot just assume people refuse the shelters. Everyone deserves a home.

[LeftInTX]

33. We had someone who works with homeless people speak at one of our community eds

Many choose outdoor spaces because they have extensive history being sexually abused and associate beds etc with sexual abuse.

[AllyCat]

47. Crushing. Cannot imagine that kind of fear and anxiety

on top of already having the stress of nowhere to live.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Does this ruling invalidate vagrancy laws?

[MineralMan]

7. Vagrancy laws are generally unconstitutional as written.

There are fewer of them these days than previously, due to court rulings.

The "No Public Sleeping" laws target the homeless directly, because people just don't like seeing homeless people around. It makes them feel guilty, and the easiest way to get rid of that guilty feeling is to not see homeless people. That's where such laws came from.

[MH1]

26. You are correct, but occasionally, someone actually wanted to sit on that bench

or any bench in that city park or transit station. Kinda sucks when EVERY bench is taken up by someone sleeping on it, and not because the trains are down.

I have sympathy for the homeless people, and I am glad for this ruling. BUT I think we need to avoid being simplistic in assessing the other side of the argument. It's not just guilt. It can be serious inconvenience (imagine said traveler or park visitor has health issues of their own, and really needs to sit down). Also, it's not just "guilt" - more like "I wish it wasn't that way but what the hell can I do?" -- i.e., sense of powerlessness. No one wants to feel powerless. That doesn't mean there aren't a-holes who literally just wish the homeless would "go away" and think every homeless person is to blame for their own condition. Just that it's more nuanced and benign for most people.

[MineralMan]

30. You know, I've never encountered any situation like that.

I've lived in and been in many cities, and have never seen anything like you describe. If I needed to sit down, I could always find a place. Since I'm not homeless and have a few bucks in my wallet, I can go into a cafe or diner, order a cup of coffee or something and sit there. I've never been in a situation where I couldn't sit down if I needed to. The problem is not that severe. It really isn't.

[MH1]

31. We have had different experiences.

Not everyone who isn't homeless always has bucks in their wallet to order something at the local Starbucks.

I have had this experience in a major city, over a course of many years of working there. Like you, I could always find somewhere to sit - although sometimes it would be a hike. But I can imagine others not as able. In fact have seen them. I am suggesting that is where some of the drive is coming from to discourage or even criminalize homeless people taking up those spaces. That it is not only from hard-heartedness.

[MineralMan]

32. And yet, those homeless people are people all the same.

They have the same right to use public facilities as anyone else does. If they need to sleep, a bench works OK as a place to do that. Does that inconvenience some person? Perhaps, but they still have the right to use public facilities. As you say, you have always been able to find somewhere to sit, even if you had to walk a bit to do so.

The homeless are not "taking up those spaces." They are simply using them. They are people, too. That's what the facilities are for - people.

Interesting take on this you have.

[MH1]

34. I agree with you, except I think a more expansive understanding of the other side

is called for.

That is all.

[MineralMan]

36. I know the other side already. I also know the side of the homeless.

Not from being homeless, although I have been out of a place to live a couple of times. But from volunteering in homeless facilities and talking to homeless people who would talk to me.

There is a difference between being a person who lives in a city or who is visiting a city and who gets tired after walking around and a homeless person who lives in that city, but has no resources or apartment or hotel room. An enormous difference.

I understand how annoying it is to want to get off your feet in a city. There aren't a lot of places to sit and rest. But, if you have no place at all where you can rest, you are always tired. It's a very different thing. It's annoying to want to sit and to find some ragged homeless person laying on the seat you spotted. It's frustrating, too. Imagine a cop knocking on your feet with a baton and telling you to move along. That happens a lot to homeless people. Move along. Go somewhere else. You don't belong here.

I know about both sides. I'm afraid my sympathies are with the homeless person, really. I'm not hungry or ill, and my shoes fit my feet. I had a shower this morning and I don't have sores on my legs. I can walk a little farther to find a place to sit. And, yes, I have enough money to buy a cup of coffee somewhere, although I don't go to Starbucks. I even have a credit card I could use if necessary.

See, I'm not homeless. I have a place to stay. I'm not going to bother a homeless person who is "taking up a space." Nope.

[Voltaire2]

42. Odd. Almost all cities have adopted the deliberately unsleep-able bench design.

You know, the ones with the horizontal pillar in the middle of bench so you can't actually lie down. I'm sure you've seen them, they really are just about everywhere and have been for decades.

Maybe you haven't actually experienced this scarcity of park bench seats due to homeless contortionists occupying the entire bench?

[MH1]

48. Recently, yes, in parks.

Not in the transit station, last I checked. But, I haven't gone to work that way in awhile, so perhaps those have been installed there as well.

Of course, some people are adept at sleeping upright, as well.

The issue is the number of homeless people in some cities, that do not have acceptable better alternatives.

The issue is NOT the other people who also want to use the facilities.

Clearly I have not expressed my point well, so am moving on from this thread.

[Ms. Toad]

13. It's not a ruling, in the sense you are thinking of. They merely declined to take the case.

Within the 9th Circuit, municipalities cannot criminalize sleeping on public property. They can prohibit it. They might be able to impose civil penalties for violation of the prohibition. They just can't punish them via a criminal conviction.

[Aristus]

8. Thank God. They're finally taking a bite out of the criminalization of homelessness.

We have to do more...

[Hekate]

9. Good

[Orrex]

10. I'm amazed that the Roberts court didn't intervene on behalf of cruelty

This is an excellent ruling.

[Ms. Toad]

12. Nope. That's not how it works.

All the Supreme Court did was decline to hear the case. Declining to hear the case says nothing about how it would decide the case on the merits, if it ultimately does agree to hear such a case.

The 9th Circuit declared that criminalizing sleeping on the streets was unconstitutional (which is still far short of saying individuals have a constitutional right to sleep on public property outdoors - it merely says they cannot be criminally punished for doing so).

It is a step in the right direction, but nowhere near as big a step as your caption would suggest.

[stopdiggin]

14. yes. this is the correct interpretation

the SCOTUS is quite possible looking for a case where the "shelters are full" element does not play a part. (and will doubtlessly find one?) You are then likely to see the court take up that case, and possibly rule differently. The decision in this (9th circuit) ruling rests largely on a "no place else to go", "a right to exist" and "you can't just wish them away" reasoning. If adequate shelter is available, a lot of the underpinning of this case goes away.

[Ms. Toad]

27. They may also be looking for a Circuit conflict. n/t

[Johnny2X2X]

16. Good news, homeless shelters can be awful places for the homeless

What people do not sometimes realize is that sleeping on the street is a preferable choice to sleeping in a shelter for many. This is for many reasons depending on the shelter and its rules.

Many shelters are not safe places, there is adequate security to prevent assaults. Others have curfews that are prohibitive. Others require a resident to leave their belongings outside, a shopping cart full of stuff might not seem like a lot, but it's often accumulated over a long period of time and is all its owner has left. Some shelters force Christian propaganda on residents, some ban homosexuals or trans from entering. And yes, some residents will not or cannot stay sober to be allowed into the shelters.

This is a complex problem in our society, the first step is to not criminalize being homeless.

[MineralMan]

20. Yes. Almost all shelters are run by non-governmental organizations.

Religious groups are the most common organization to run homeless shelters. Some do so without proselytizing, but not all. But, you're right, they often aren't safe places to stay. Most prohibit substance-users from staying in the shelter, as well, which bars many.

All of this means that some people simply do not go to shelters at all. They're still homeless, though, and have to find someplace to sleep, since all mammals require sleep. The problem is not going to go away, either. A sizable portion of the homeless community is simply not compatible with things like employment. It's not their fault, either. Mental illness, substance addiction, poor physical health, age and many other factors are at play.

[tishaLA]

41. A large shelter chain in LA (!) won't allow undocumented people

to stay in the shelter. It astonished me when I found out about the policy

[OhNo-Really]

44. Perhaps criminalizing excessive greed would help

[Hortensis]

18. The hard-cores may just be ruling in favor of the anti-taxers, but

good. Very good anyway. The right to exist is even more basic than the "right" to have shelters built to hide the homeless from the taxpayers' view.

[lame54]

19. Powerless?...

There are solutions that other cities are using

They just don't care enough to try

[hunter]

37. This is a Federal problem, not a local problem.

The homeless migrate to places where they can survive, migrating away from places they cannot.

Sometimes it's the climate, which is one reason people end up in areas where they are less likely to freeze to death in the winter.

Sometimes it's the cultural climate -- people moving away from places where it is very dangerous to be LGBTQ, not white, mentally ill, etc..

Civilized nations work to eliminate homelessness by housing people, not by killing them, not by putting them in jail, not by letting them die on the streets.

[lame54]

38. Tell that to Salt Lake City

[hunter]

43. It was in many ways a self-selected population.

Those who could be integrated into the system stayed, those who couldn't left.

In any case...

Once a national model, Utah struggles with homelessness

Gregory Scruggs
JANUARY 10, 2019

SALT LAKE CITY (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Once lauded as a leader among U.S. cities struggling to relieve homelessness, the number of people sleeping rough in Utah’s capital has spiked in the past two years, as funding for its groundbreaking housing program dried up.

Homelessness is on the rise in the United States for the second year in a row according to a December report by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The increase has been particularly noticeable in Utah, which had reduced chronic homelessness by 91 percent over the decade up to 2015, according to the state’s annual homelessness report.

--more--

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-homelessness-housing/once-a-national-model-utah-struggles-with-homelessness-idUSKCN1P41EQ

[Polybius]

22. I was surprised it wasn't already posted in LBN

I just posted there too. Good decision on the SC, btw.

[WhiskeyWulf]

25. They're worried about "residents' health and safety concerns"

How about the health and safety concerns of the homeless themselves?

[onecaliberal]

28. That's good. Where do they expect these poor souls to go.

[Newest Reality]

29. Wow...

That's a shock, but it is good news, although more action about the affordable housing crises, low wages and the currently homeless is needed.

Being an old tent dweller, it is a relief to see some kind of legal recognition that homelessness is not a crime. It is hard enough being domestically challenged, (as I tend to call it).

[budkin]

35. Low hanging fruit

For Roberts to show how much empathy this court has...

[albacore]

39. That right... to sleep on public property...

...could be really important during and after the next crash.
We're overdue, so....
And nothing brings the recession/depression/whatever home to the people not impacted by it like having lots and lots of homeless people sleeping in the parks and public areas.
Maybe THIS time, we'll think about doing something long-term about the homeless problem.
Maybe.

[tishaLA]

40. Now we'll see how cities try to skate around

the "no other shelter is available to them" part of this.

[AllyCat]

45. "Address residents' health and safety concerns"? Really?

Cities absolutely have the right to address that: by ensuring adequate and safe housing for all the people on the street, they can address their health and safety. And everyone else BTW.