Supreme Court to Attempt to Answer the United States’ Homelessness Situation

In November 2023, San Francisco hosted a gathering of the world’s most influential people at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation’s (APEC) Economic Leaders’ Week. Among the guest list were 22 world leaders, including the presidents of the United States and China, as well as prominent business leaders such as the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Microsoft. Outside the conference, the “No to APEC Coalition,” composed of more than 100 grassroots groups, protested against corporate profits and environmental abuses they allege have been perpetuated by attendees of the global trade summit. However, the homelessness encampments that usually populate areas of high visibility, such as Van Ness Boulevard and the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building, were seemingly missing from this scene in San Francisco. In fact, emails between San Francisco public officials show that they made a concerted effort to displace homeless people in the city in the weeks leading up to APEC. This action taken by a major U.S. city has worried advocates for homeless people as homelessness becomes a growing and more pressing issue. 

The 2023 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress found that homelessness reached a record high in the U.S. and increased by 12% from 2022 to 2023, with more than 650,000 Americans living in shelters, tents, or cars. Experts attribute the drastic rise in homelessness to a decrease in federal aid that prevents people from getting evicted, the increase in inflation, and the record-high median rent. At the same time, many cities across the U.S. have resorted to law enforcement methods to deal with issues surrounding homelessness. In Portland, Maine, city officials tore down one of its oldest homeless encampments at Fore River. The city offered 170 shelter beds to those camped out at Fore River; only 18 accepted the offer, citing high barriers to entry such as for those with substance abuse issues. Also, in Seattle, Washington, the city removed the Black Lives Memorial Garden, which served as an essential community space and a safe space for people experiencing homelessness. 

Just a month before APEC, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu filed a brief requesting that the Supreme Court look into and reverse the ruling of the Oregon case, Johnson v. Grants Pass, which prohibited the punishment of homeless people for sleeping outside. Chiu argued that the District Court’s ruling has made it difficult and confusing for cities to enforce their homelessness policies. In April 2024, the Supreme Court will hear this major case and determine whether cities can fine or arrest homeless people for sleeping outside if there are no alternatives for shelter. As homelessness continues to rise, this case will have significant consequences on how the country will attempt to deal with its unhoused population. 

The Case

In 2018, attorney Ed Johnson of the Oregon Law Center filed against the small town of Grants Pass, Oregon, on behalf of those suing the city for issuing tickets to homeless people sleeping in public areas despite having nowhere else for them to go. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case and ruled against Grant Pass on the basis that the ticketing and arresting of homeless people constituted cruel and unusual punishment and thus violated their Eighth Amendment rights. 

With support from Republican-led states like Idaho, Montana, and Nebraska, Democrat-led cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, and a brief from Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA), Grant Pass appealed the Circuit Court’s decision to the Supreme Court. In January 2024, the Court announced that it would hear arguments on April 22, 2024, and they would reach a decision by the end of the court term: June 30, 2024.

The Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling upheld Martin v. City of Boise (2018), which also considered the treatment of homeless people in the Idaho capital as cruel and unusual punishment. The case failed to reach the Supreme Court, so its implications only extended to the states under its jurisdiction–Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. While these states did stop their enforcement of sit/lie ordinances and encampment sweeps, the same cannot be said for some cities that continue to circumvent the ruling with different justifications. In Chico, California, city officials tried to claim that a tarmac with no roof, water, or electricity was a suitable shelter for homeless individuals in order to enforce its anti-camping ordinance. While in Oakland, California, unhoused people have to fear that bulldozers and excavators will destroy their possessions and temporary homes.

Opponents of the Johnson v. Grant Pass ruling, however, see it as a major overreach of Martin v. Boise since it prohibited not only criminal offenses but also civil offenses, such as fines as punishment for sleeping in public spaces. In addition, they claim that the ruling impedes the ability of law enforcement to break up tent cities, which they contend are a public health crisis. Advocates for the homeless argue that these financial penalties severely exacerbate the problem by pushing the recipients of these fines into debt and ruining their credit scores. This then makes it even more difficult and costlier for them to get a loan, rent an apartment, or obtain insurance. In addition, a criminal record from an arrest also makes it more challenging for someone to secure a job in the future. 

Homelessness in 2024 and Beyond

As homelessness increases in the U.S., the measures that cities are taking to reconcile it are increasing in severity as well. If the Supreme Court upholds the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court, organizers hope that it will force cities to invest in alternatives to law enforcement such as building affordable housing. In addition, this ruling could stop the trend of cities, like New York City, reducing the social services budget while increasing the police budget. The hope is that improved services such as food stamps and sexual health clinics could alleviate the burden on those most susceptible to, as well as those already victims of, homelessness. On the other hand, overturning Johnson v. Grant Pass would permit cities on a national level to deal with their unhoused populations in potentially counterintuitive ways. Whatever the court decides, one thing is clear: this ruling will determine how this country will address its increasingly prevalent homelessness problem for many years to come.