Call for US Supreme Court to Decide Homeless Camp Dispute

California Governor Urges Supreme Court to ⁤Review Ruling on Homeless Encampments

In a bold move, Governor Gavin Newsom’s office has requested the‌ U.S. Supreme Court to‌ review a ruling that has hindered cities from addressing the issue ⁣of homeless encampments. The Democratic governor’s office filed a brief on September 22, emphasizing that the​ ruling in the City of ‌Grants Pass v. Johnson case has prevented cities across California from clearing​ out homeless individuals from public areas such as parks and sidewalks.

“While I agree with the basic principle that a city shouldn’t criminalize homeless individuals for sleeping⁤ outside when they have nowhere else to go⁢ within that city’s boundaries, courts continue​ to reach ⁢well beyond that narrow limit to‍ block any number of reasonable efforts⁢ to ⁢protect homeless individuals and the broader public from the⁣ harms of uncontrolled encampments,”

-⁤ Governor Gavin Newsom

The governor expressed his concerns​ about the “confusing” and “impractical” rulings that exacerbate the homelessness crisis. He argued that courts should intervene to​ prevent such ⁤rulings that ‌restrict ⁤state and local governments‌ from ⁤implementing common-sense approaches to address the issue.

Related Stories

• Supreme Court Temporarily Allows Biden Administration’s⁢ Social Media Censorship Efforts – 9/22/2023
• Supreme Court Ethics⁣ Code Would Be ‘A Good Thing,’ Justice Kagan Says – 9/23/2023

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit previously upheld ‌a ruling that blocked an anti-camping rule in Grants Pass, which aimed to prohibit sleeping‌ on public property. This ruling‍ expanded on the 2018 Martin v. City of Boise case, which prevented the criminalization of sleeping in public areas when cities cannot provide adequate shelter.

As cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and ⁢Portland grapple with a significant increase in homelessness, encampments, and public drug usage, Governor Newsom highlighted the lack⁣ of clarity in recent court rulings. He emphasized⁤ that these rulings ​hinder cities ⁢from implementing public safety⁢ measures.

“These courts have stretched Martin’s reasonable limit into⁢ an unsurmountable roadblock, preventing cities and towns from imposing commonsense time and place restrictions to​ keep streets safe and to move those experiencing homelessness ‌into shelter.”

– Governor Gavin Newsom

The governor’s brief⁤ also mentioned specific cases where court⁢ rulings ‌have impeded efforts to address homelessness. For instance, a ​district court in Los Angeles mandated numerous‍ requirements for shelters before the city could enforce anti-camping laws.

The California State Association⁢ of Counties and League of California Cities also filed an amicus brief, expressing concerns about previous federal⁣ court rulings that have hindered cities from addressing homeless camps due to public safety concerns.

Governor Newsom has long criticized federal judges who have⁢ blocked efforts to clear homeless ​camps, arguing that such actions undermine the goal⁣ of relocating individuals from ⁣hazardous areas. He expressed his hope that the Supreme Court will take up⁢ this‌ case, stating, ⁢”It’s gone too far. People’s lives are at risk.”

Lawyers representing the Grants Pass plaintiffs have not yet commented on the governor’s brief. The case is Grants⁢ Pass v. Johnson; No. 23-175.

How did⁢ the Ninth‌ Circuit’s ruling in the Grants Pass v. Johnson case⁤ impact the⁤ City⁢ of Grants Pass, Oregon’s attempt to clear a homeless encampment from a public⁣ park?

Of‌ Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling in the Grants​ Pass v. Johnson case in ⁢July 2023. The case involved the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, which attempted to clear a homeless encampment from a public park. The court ruled ‍that the city’s actions violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual⁣ punishment, as it essentially criminalized the status​ of being​ homeless.

Governor Newsom’s brief highlights the negative consequences ​of this ruling for cities in California, where the homeless crisis has⁤ reached alarming ⁣levels. He argues that the ⁣ruling prevents ⁤local governments from effectively‌ addressing the issue and poses significant public health and safety⁢ risks.

The governor’s office emphasizes that the state of California has taken ⁤significant ⁣steps to provide shelter and​ supportive services to homeless individuals. However, the ruling in the Grants Pass case hinders their ability to manage public spaces and ensure ⁤the welfare of both homeless individuals and the broader community.

Governor Newsom’s brief ⁤also points‌ out that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously recognized that⁣ cities can regulate the ​use of public spaces to protect‌ public health, welfare, and safety. However, the Ninth‍ Circuit’s ‌ruling ‌in the Grants ⁣Pass case undermines this authority and inhibits‌ cities from taking⁣ necessary actions to address the homelessness ⁢crisis.

The governor’s request to the Supreme ⁢Court is not only to review the ⁢ruling in the Grants Pass case but also to ‌provide guidance on how cities can balance the rights of homeless individuals with the responsibility to maintain public order and safety. The brief ‍urges the⁤ Court to clarify the scope of the Eighth‍ Amendment’s ‌application to homeless encampments and to consider the consequences of its ruling on‌ cities’ ability to address the crisis effectively.

Governor Newsom’s push‌ for Supreme Court review has garnered support from various ‌mayors, law ⁤enforcement agencies, and advocacy groups across California. They argue that the current legal⁣ framework hampers their efforts to provide humanitarian assistance, connect individuals with services, and address the underlying causes ​of homelessness.

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to review the⁤ Grants Pass case will have significant implications not only for California but also for other states grappling with similar issues. ⁤It presents an opportunity for the Court to provide much-needed clarity and guidance on the legality ⁤of clearing homeless encampments and the obligations of state and local governments in addressing the homelessness crisis.

The governor’s office remains hopeful that the Supreme Court will⁣ take up‌ the⁣ case and reconsider the implications ⁢of ‌the‌ Grants Pass ruling. They believe that a revised interpretation of the Eighth Amendment would allow cities in California and beyond to implement solutions that protect the rights and well-being of homeless ⁢individuals while also ensuring the safety and livability of‍ public spaces for​ all residents.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases