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.
