The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has again denied municipalities and communities the authority to remove homeless encampments from sidewalks, streets, and public lands unless adequate shelter is provided for the people being removed.
The decision came as an response to a lawsuit by homeless people originating in Grants Pass, Ore., where local authorities were forcibly evicting squatters from both public and private properties.
The court’s ruling on Wednesday stems from a previous decision made in July 2020 by a court in Medford, which deemed Grants Pass’s ordinances regulating homelessness as unconstitutional.
The ordinances were criticized for being cruel and unusual punishment and for imposing excessive fines. One of the city’s ordinances specifically prohibited homeless individuals from using essential items such as blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for protection from the elements while sleeping within city limits. Other ordinances included “anti-sleeping” and “anti-camping” measures, a “park exclusion” ordinance, and a “park exclusion appeals” ordinance. Violations of these ordinances could result in civil fines amounting to several hundred dollars per offense, with repeat offenders facing potential bans from all city properties. Additionally, individuals found on city property after receiving an exclusion order could be subject to criminal prosecution for trespassing.
In response to the initial ruling by the Medford court, Grants Pass appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court, where a three-judge panel upheld the decision last year. Seeking further review, the city requested that all judges on the Ninth Circuit Court hear the case. However, on Wednesday, the judges voted against granting that request.
This case drew on a previous ruling known as Marvin v. City of Boise in 2018. The Marvin ruling declared 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.”
The recent Ninth Circuit decision emphasized that the Martin v. City of Boise ruling served as the backdrop for the entire litigation. Consequently, any attempt to criminally punish homeless individuals for sleeping in public areas, in the absence of suitable alternatives or shelters, would be considered a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
One of the plaintiffs died before the decision was given by the Ninth Circuit, but judges said that would not make the case moot.
The dissenting judges wrote, “we must preserve for our localities the ability to make tough policy choices unobstructed by court-created mandates that lack any sound basis in law. The expanding constitutional common law our court is fashioning in this area adds enormous and unjustified complication to an already extremely complicated set of circumstances.”
Judge Daniel Collins wrote in a separate dissent that:
- Martin v. City of Boise is a “deeply flawed” decision that seriously misconstrued the Eighth Amendment and the Supreme Court’s caselaw construing it;
- Even if Martin were correct in its Eighth Amendment holding, the panel majority’s decision in Johnson greatly expands Martin’s holding in a way that is egregiously wrong; and
- The panel majority’s decision makes things worse by combining its gross misreading of Martin with a flagrant disregard of settled class- certification principles.
Well the homeless should camp on the courts sidewalk and at the judges homes and the taxpayers can feed them at those locations so the homeless has no reason to leave.
So simple. And I’ll buy them tents with my own money…if they promise to reside in the courthouse parking lot, the steps, occasionally in the lobby, bathrooms, and of course, they can vacation at judges homes’ front yards when they get tired of the streets.
Why? Are they on your property?
This means we can camp in any public land anywhere we want. Including state parks and national parks. It’s official: camp ANYWHERE you want in Denali National Park. Built a cardboard cabin if you like.
Does not say where to give them shelter.
Take it to SCOTUS.
It’s insane to rule people who are potentially damaging public lands and being a public nuisance can’t be removed by public servants.
A section of the population which chooses to live outside the bounds of society must not be able to dictate terms to society. Nor punish the society who pay for public lands.
A closed society is what it appears you suggest.
It also would be un-American. And thus outside society. Which leaves you as the one living outside of society dictating who wishes to dictate terms of society.
Or so it seems by your own words.
Every sentence of your comment was incorrect. He made no mention of the useless “open/closed society” dichotomy; rewards based on merits are exceedingly American; and the people wrongfully occupying and damaging both public and private lands are not members of society as much as they are burdens upon it.
He is by no means a minority in his opinion.
They wouldn’t hear it.
Before the usual nattering myrmidons start barking, answer me one question:
How often have communities benefited from allowing homeless to overrun public spaces? Please list specifics.
Yet another example of Khrushchev’s position our society will fall without Russia (in any form) firing a shot.
WONDERFUL word, TMA, “myrmidons”! And truly fitting for all the mindless pro-establishment automatons out there.
I hate this ruling with a passion but at the same time, where are they going to go if there’s no viable shelter? They can’t just walk around day and night. It’s not reality.
That is their problem.
If their existing shelters are considered viable, then move the shelter as well. problem solved, take them and there shelter outside of the areas you don’t want them and be done with it.
It’s hard to keep. Easier to stand back and point fingers.
This country is so pathetic
The courts got this one right.
Funny how these leftist judges always want it both ways.
So useless bums get a special right to squat on public lands and shoot up without risk of penalty. Yet notice how these judges were careful to preserve governments’ ‘right’ to penalize normal taxpayers who try to take advantage of that same leniency.
If a thrifty White property owner decided to ‘urban camp’ on city land to save a few bucks on private hotel/camping/RV parking fees, bet your bottom dollar these judges happily would uphold hefty fines and property confiscation.
Nope. As harsh as it may seem, it is not the court’s role to determine public policy nor is it to creatively interpret the Constitution.
There is no right to housing, nor is there a Constitutional standard to set; but this is the danger of precedent.
There is a reason why appeals courts exist and why appeals courts usually have an odd number of judges sitting. It is acknowledgement that they can and do get things wrong.
Whether or not and how much charity the homeless deserve or receive is a matter that belongs to the public forum, not a courtroom to be decided by a very few, of whom probably none are directly affected.
“Leaving it to the courts” is nothing more than political and social passing the buck.
The concept of precedents stare decises game is common to Britian (monarchist) Common Law. We in the US have American Common Law. There isn’t much of it though since the esquires dutifully observe law that is Common to Britain as dictated by the monarch. If you are not the defendant, prosecutor, or a party at all to the matter and negotiated no part of the settlement, paid no legal fees then the settlement, remedy if any does not distribute to you in anyway. You have nothing to do at all with the case. That is the American Law that is common to America.
More nihilistic, pro-Marxist BS from the Ninth (Circle of Hell) Circuit.
Humanimals deserve and NEED to be evicted from ANYWHERE where they are trespassing and polluting society with their execrable existence — and that includes ALL public property.
There seems to be a misunderstanding throughout the lala land of the idiocracy here and elsewhere.
All you need to do is provide an alternative legal camping area. Then you can remove squatter camps because there is an equal alternative to squatting in illegal areas. You DO NOT have to provide indoor shelter.
The only public expense would be to build a small building with two doors: One for the liquor/tobacco store and one for the medical clinic. Maybe a third door on the side for cannabis – not sure if that’s needed.
When the homeless can develop lawsuits, you know they aren’t as helpless as they look. The plaintiffs are con artists.
Mmmmmm good, good. Give them something for nothing….that’ll help eradicate this problem. Squatters rights I guess, what difference does it make anymore? We’ll have millions more to take care of by the the time ol scranton joe kicks the bucket.
It is a stretch to make “AMENDMENT VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” apply to homeless camp abatment as CRUEL or UNUSUAL punishment and require local governments to provide FREE shelters for them. Take it to the Supreme Court.
The legal theory must diverge from facts. I hope the judiciary were suffiently briefed as to the actual nature of these corps and who exactly owns thum. What if, for instance, in the vernacular only does the US public “own” federal muncy, corporatism land; when perhaps the “agencies somewhat associated in the vernacular”, are foreign in nature and reality have been ceded quietly into the City of London which may though quietly also mean “the (also stateless) Vatican” by virtue of sometime the deference shown to it by the Most Honorable King of England and compulsory yet unexplained agreements in current effect. Who knows. What an unsavory dilemma among others.
The nonprofit organizations that are looking out for these people are being paid by our tax money. This money never reaches the needy but instead is spent on payroll and lawyers to “protect “ these needy. If the millions that this city has spent towards the homeless was actually given to them they could all be living large. This point cannot be disputed. Give them some freebies and the “problem “ will continue. Cities that don’t cater to their needs have no problem. Anchorage has created their own problem. How long do we put up with it? Assembly members have enriched themselves enough, working on the honest compassion of Alaskans. Take your money and run, its over.
Too bad there’s such a lack of space in this state to put the homeless. Unless they’re ‘saneless’. Give em’ tents and a service musk ox or something and move them.
Where in any of those decisions is it stated that government is responsible to shelter citizens? No.
That’s what a responsible society does.
No. You completely missed it.
He stated government, you stated society.
You both may be correct, in the strict literal sense.
Is government a tool of society or is it the other way around?
When or if it becomes a government function, then both compulsion and dis-engagement occurs. The individual, the person, no longer has to participate in decisions because he has ceded any sense of personal responsibility.
Which then extends to the homeless and disadvantaged.
So do the homeless and disadvantaged deserve the love of fellow man and society? Of course they do.
Should society, to include the homeless and disadvantaged, cede it’s responsibilities to an institution? NO.
Equating government to society is the very crux of our social issues.
Shame.
If this is the case, then people should be able to build and do anything they want on their own private property with out being harassed by any government intervention , seriously why are people buying permits or even paying taxes on your private property. This is Total BS, they seem not to have any problem enforcing laws towards your your every day law abiding citizens and routinely impose their fines and fees towards normal people , but if your a worthless POS who chooses to disregard any rules or common practices of civility the Government Parasites turn their heads and give them special treatment. Maybe it time for all of us to identity as homeless and being down and out, I kinda agree with Dan, many of the officials are totally pathetic ,yes, maybe it’s time for us all to lay claim to a chunk of public ground and build shanties , live off grid, and live basicly for free , Hell where can we all sign up for all the special treatment programs and free stuff!
San Francisco I hear.
Appeal to SCOTUS, abuse of 8th Amendment. There’s no constitutional right to squat on public (or private) property.
You’re confused. The 8th is about bail and cruel and unusual punishment. If you’re saying the state has a responsibility to provide care, just like it does prisoners in jail, then yes, the 8th does come into play.
Bull—- to the 9 circuit. So they are saying it’s the responsibility of the American tax payer to pay for every parasite drug addict drunk. They can kiss my —. Marxist judges.
All these liberal cities are Falling on their faces. Let it rip. These cities are run by evil idiots. When there is nothing left but burning rubble these same clowns will blame someone else all the while thinking they were right. In thinking themselves wise they became fools.
I guess I’ll get started on my squatter cabin in Denali National Park.
They want to camp in summer so they can abuse substances because they can’t while in indoor shelters. So give them a campground, and keep them out of the parks and wooded areas they set fire to repeatedly, then provide a warehouse (not an expensive sports arena) for winter. We aren’t going to provide them with condos. Forget it. Ain’t happening.
Be interesting to see how this is handled by BLM re their policy of burning down trespass cabins in remote parts of Alaska!
Still waiting for someone on the left to give examples of how catering to the homeless improves a community.
Bueller? Bueller?
I’m not a leftist but I will take a stab at it. If you fight an infection, chances are you won’t have to amputate. It may linger and flare up, but eventually it will be tolerable.
If you encourage an infection and give it a right to stay, the opposite will happen.
Why would you want to do that? We’re talking about fighting the cause of homeless. Keep up.
However, it’s simple to notice that serious homeless issues arise only in areas that have more “social” services and public amenities than others.
Not to say that all of the homeless are homeless by choice, not at all.
HOWEVER, in much of rural America there is both a labor shortage and a housing glut.
How is it that the homelessness issue is only present in communities that have more amenities v. surrounding small communities bereft of government or government-sanctioned services?
There is room for showing grace, but there’s also room for having enough confidence in fellow man’s ability to make good choices when he must.
There are three equal branches of Government.
We just need to tell them to STFU.
Comments are closed.