U.S. Supreme Court case on Oregon anti-camping ordinances to impact homeless persons nationwide
The U.S. Supreme Court was hearing a case Monday that could have far-reaching implications on how cities treat people experiencing homelessness.
The case involves whether local jurisdictions can enforce laws to curb encampments. A community in Southwest Oregon wants to make it illegal to sleep on public land, but the plaintiffs in the case say that's cruel and unusual punishment. It's a complicated issue as cities cope with surging homeless populations and calls to increase public safety.
Anthony has called the streets near Larkin and Ellis in San Francisco's Tenderloin District his home for the past 25 years.
"I came from Los Angeles, pretty much doing my own thing," said Anthony, who is unhoused and preferred to use his first name only. "I came with my family at first and now it's just me here."
He is just one of many people experiencing homelessness who rely on public spaces for survival and whose lives could be impacted by a crucial decision awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass.
"It's already tough enough to be out here on the streets and you gotta be able to take care of yourself on the streets and we don't have money or anything," said Anthony.
The case, originating from Grants Pass, Oregon, raises national concerns about anti-camping ordinances and their effects on homeless communities and whether it is unconstitutional to cite people for sleeping in public, even if they have nowhere else to go.
"It will address a very narrow question which is, is there any constitutional status for people who are homeless and can you criminalize behaviors that homeless must engage in such as sleeping in public, eating and urinating in public," said UC Law San Francisco professor Rory Little.
"This law was attacked by a number of people who are homeless as a cause of action on behalf of all the homeless, not only in Grants Pass necessarily but also around California and the country, and the district court dismissed their lawsuit, but the Ninth Court of Appeals reversed that and said, no, these people have a cause of action and laws that criminalize the status of being homeless are unconstitutional," Little elaborated.
Little emphasized that regardless of the court's decision, the case will prompt municipalities to reevaluate their approach to homelessness amid a time when it is on the rise across the country, with a 12% increase reported between 2022 and 2023, according to a Department of Housing and Urban Development report.
"I think the court is likely to say not everybody who lives on the streets is involuntarily there," said Little. "They are there for other reasons, some, not all, and they're going to say that municipalities would have to pick and choose and would have to make individualistic determinations ... almost every person, and that is a huge task and if you are a police officer in San Francisco and you have to interview each person you find individually before you decide what you can do with them. That's huge and expensive."
Little added we should expect a ruling by the end of June. For now, Anthony will stay here on the streets, hoping for the best.
"I don't think they should do anything like that, to fine us just for being on the streets," Anthony said. "That's not cool."
