title
DISCUSSION REGARDING CAMPING ON CITY PROPERTY (GRANTS PASS DECISION)
recommended action
RECOMMENDATION
Informational only; no action to be taken.
body
Summary
In 2019, the Ninth Circuit decided Martin v. Boise 920 F.3d 584 (2019). Martin involved an ordinance in Boise that made it a misdemeanor to use “streets, sidewalks, parks, or public places” for “camping.” The Ninth Circuit held that “the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.” Boise (and all other local governments in the Ninth Circuit), therefore could not enforce public-camping ordinances against homeless individuals who lacked “access to alternative shelter.”
Grants Pass, a city in Oregon passed several ordinances after the Martin decision related to the regulation of sleeping outside, which taken together made it nearly impossible to sleep outside with any form of bedding or shelter on public land in the city. A violation of these ordinances resulted in fines, which would escalate if left unpaid. Two homeless individuals in Grants Pass filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of those that are “involuntarily homeless” against the city, arguing its ordinances are unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that “the anti-camping ordinances violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause to the extent they prohibited homeless individuals from ‘taking necessary minimal measures to keep themselves warm and dry while sleeping when there are no alternative forms of shelter available.’”
Grants Pass filed a petition for certiorari which was granted. Ultimately, the Supreme overturned Martin v. Boise, holding that anti-camping ordinances do not violate the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.
DISCUSSION
Background
Grants Pass, a city in Oregon with a population of 38,000 people, of whom approximately 600 are individuals experiencing homelessness, passed several ordinances after the Martin decision related to the regulation of sleeping outside, which taken together made it nearly impossible to sleep outside with any form of bedding or shelter on public land in the city.
A violation of these ordinances resulted in fines, which would escalate if left unpaid. The “park exclusion” ordinance allowed police officers to bar someone from a city park for 30 days if they received 2 more citations for violating park ordinances within one year. If someone received a park exclusion ordinance and was later found in a park, that could result in criminal trespass. The city amended its camping ordinance after Martin to make it clear that the involuntary act of sleeping in a park was not prohibited, rather what was prohibited was “camping” - i.e., sleeping with any bedding / shelter.
Two homeless individuals in Grants Pass filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of those that are “involuntarily homeless” against the city, arguing its ordinances are unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s class certification of all “involuntarily homeless” in Grants Pass. The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court’s holding that “the anti-camping ordinances violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause to the extent they prohibited homeless individuals from ‘taking necessary minimal measures to keep themselves warm and dry while sleeping when there are no alternative forms of shelter available.’” Although the city had four temporary shelters, none were “adequate” for the city’s homeless population.
Present Situation
Grants Pass filed a petition for certiorari and many cities and counties from across the Ninth Circuit and country joined Grants Pass in urging the Court to grant review, which the Court granted. On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision overturning Martin v. Boise, holding that anti-camping ordinances do not violate the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.
The Court explained the “Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest … [the] rights and responsibilities from the American people” to decide “how best to handle a pressing social question like homelessness” and “in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.” The decision also highlighted the complexities of the homeless crisis and noted that five years ago, the Ninth Circuit “took one of [the] tools [needed to address homelessness] off the table” in Martin v. Boise, 920 F. 3d 584 (2019).
In its 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s “Martin experiment.” In doing so, the Court explained that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause addresses “the method or kind of punishment a government may impose for the violation of criminal statutes.”
Ultimately, the Court found that public camping laws like the one in Grants Pass do not criminalize status, but instead make certain actions a crime, and the crime applies to any defendant, as the Court puts it, whether the person is homeless or a backpacker on vacation. The Court also noted that Martin exemplifies much of what can go wrong when courts try to resolve matters without secure guidance in the Constitution.
In other words, the Court recognized that the problem of homelessness is complex and that its decision would return the hard task of solving the homelessness crisis to state and local policymakers, where it belongs. Rather than spending significant time, money, and resources litigating Martin claims, local governments can focus on expending resources to help the homeless community while ensuring their public spaces are safe and clean in a manner consistent with local needs.
To that end, the City’s efforts to expand services for the unsheltered and address the ongoing root causes of homelessness will continue with an eye toward review and revision of existing ordinances as needed to further these efforts.
One example of these efforts is the Clean City Initiative which advances new and existing programs to reduce trash accumulation and illegal dumping across the city.
The initiative is a collaborative effort between the City Manager’s Office, Public Works Department, Stockton Police Department, Republic Services, Waste Manage, and community volunteers. The initiative is comprised of activities including recycling events, community cleanup events, and encampment cleanups. A summary of activity is provided below:
|
Event |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
|
Drive Thru Recycling |
2,627 vehicles served |
2,028 vehicles served |
1,312 vehicles served |
|
Community Cleanup |
21 events, 575 volunteers, 458 bags of litter |
11 events, 409 volunteers, 38 trees planted, 65 litter bags collected |
18 events, 457 volunteers, 72 trees planted, 198 litter bags collected |
|
Neighborhood Services Events |
449 mattresses, 179 tires, 113 e-waste, 69.2 tons of trash, 224 appliances |
115 mattresses, 169 tires, 112 e-waste, 76.8 tons of trash, 107 appliances |
72 mattresses recycled, 98 tires, 3 tons of e-waste, 47 tons of trash, 82 appliances |
|
Homeless Encampment Cleanup |
28 events, 897 truckloads, 1,485 tons of waste removed |
26 events, 690 truckloads, 1,216 tons of waste removed |
24 events, 583 truckloads, 1,238 tons of waste removed |
Another example is the City’s ongoing effort to facilitate and support the creation of affordable housing and shelter space. To that end, the following chart depicts completed or scheduled to be completed housing and shelter projects in 2024:
|
Housing Project |
Developer |
Units |
Timeframe |
|
Villa D Flore |
Visionary |
12 |
August |
|
Grand View Village |
Visionary |
74 |
Opened in Feb. |
|
Calaveras Quarters |
Housing Authority |
69 |
October |
|
Sonora Square |
Housing Authority |
37 |
Opened in Spring |
|
Town Center Studios |
Central Valley |
20 (of 40) |
Opened in July |
|
Homeless Beds |
Developer |
Beds |
Timeframe |
|
Navigation Center |
City of Stockton |
150 |
Fall 2024 |
|
Pathways |
St. Mary's |
280 |
December 2024/January 2025 |
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Homelessness/Housing Spending
● 2020:
○ Total Allocated Funds: $15,845,000 (State/Federal funds)
● 2021:
○ Total Allocated Funds: $47.3 million (ERAP, ESG, ESG-CV)
○ Joined the Homeless Outreach Team (HOT)
● 2022:
○ Total Allocated Funds: $56 million (ERAP, Affordable Housing NOFA, CDBG, ESG, ESG-CV)
○ Housing Units Created: 838 units (86 very-low-income, 102 low-income)
● 2023:
○ Total Allocated Funds: $4.1 million (HHAP, SB2, LEAP, REAP), $10 million (Joint allocation, City + County Homeless Shelter)
○ Housing Units Created: 610 units (69 low-income, 51 ADUs)