The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider a case involving the rights of homeless people. An eventual ruling could impact how municipalities — including Vancouver — balance the rights of unhoused residents with the need for orderly enforcement.
The case is considered the most significant challenge to homeless rights in decades, and it will help shape how cities respond to tent encampments. Ideally, a decision will allow local governments to decide what is best for their communities. At the same time, it should reinforce the notion that simply telling unhoused residents to go elsewhere does not solve the problem or reflect a compassionate approach to the issue.
The case out of Southern Oregon (Grants Pass v. Johnson, Gloria, et al) looks at a federal class action lawsuit arguing that the city’s laws unconstitutionally punished people for being homeless, noting a shortage of affordable housing and shelters in the area.
In 2022, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals the ruled in favor of the homeless plaintiffs. That echoed a 2018 decision in Martin v. Boise that ruled public camping cannot be outlawed if there is a lack of shelter beds.
The U.S. Supreme Court previously declined to hear appeals in the Boise case, which makes Friday’s decision significant. In one case, an Arizona state judge last year urged the Supreme Court to take up the matter, writing that the Boise and Grants Pass decisions “tie the hands of cities that seek in good faith to address the growing homeless encampment epidemic.”
In simple terms, the high court will decide whether it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause to fine or arrest people for being homeless.
The question has broad implications and is meaningful to governments in this part of the country. Remarkably, according to federal data, 42 percent of the nation’s homeless population is within the 9th Circuit, which covers nine Western states.
In response, the city of Vancouver late last year declared a state of emergency related to the issue. “We are committed to doing everything we can to address homelessness in our city,” City Manager Eric Holmes said. “This mechanism will give us the agility we need to take action quickly as we continue to develop effective outreach-led, enforcement-backed solutions.”
Among other benefits, city officials say, the declaration will provide more leeway for the removal of homeless encampments.
Such action is necessary. Despite strong efforts in Vancouver — including the creation of Safe Stay Communities and a voter-approved levy to increase the stock of affordable housing — the homeless population has visibly grown.
Tent encampments along roadsides are unsightly, unsanitary and dangerous, diminishing the quality of life for all area residents. But simply clearing encampments does not solve the problem. Nor does fining or arresting people. Homeless people are unlikely to have the means or the will to pay fines, and arrests place an undue and ineffective burden on law enforcement.
Municipalities should, indeed, have the power to clear tent communities on public land but long-term solutions are necessary. That falls to the Legislature and policies that will vastly increase the housing stock. And it falls to the federal government and policies that improve economic equity. A Supreme Court decision alone will not solve the underlying issues that have caused our homeless population to increase.
