Overview:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 vote that Grants Pass, Oregon was exercising within the powers of the constitution when they issued penalties to people sleeping in public spaces, saying that it did not represent “cruel and unusual” punishment as expressed by the eighth amendment.
The ruling is a victory for many policymakers who have been interested in imposing similar restrictions on their local unhoused communities, while homeless advocates criticize the ruling.
A recent Supreme Court ruling on homelessness and outdoor camping drew mixed reactions from Fresno-area leaders, who largely praised the ruling as a public safety win, and advocates who condemned the ruling as cruel.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the small town of Grants Pass, Oregon was acting within their constitutional powers when they issued penalties to people sleeping in public spaces. The 6-3 ruling — which was split among ideological lines between the justices — is seen by some as the first step in local governments passing their own legislation to criminalize homelessness.
Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer praised the decision, calling it a “game-changer.”
“We will now have the opportunity to once again enforce the city of Fresno’s no camping ordinance in public places,” Dyer said in a statement to Fresnoland. “However, the true long term solution is increased shelter capacity, services and permanent housing for those on our streets so they can become gainfully employed and self-sustaining.”
Fresno County’s officals did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Dez Martinez is the executive director of We Are Not Invisible, a Fresno-based homeless advocacy organization. Formerly homeless herself, Martinez has been advocating for the unhoused community for years. Martinez called the Supreme Court ruling “profoundly disappointing” and said it “overturned the Constitutional protections for people experiencing homelessness.”
“The taxpayers are the only ones that are going to bear the burden of diverting resources to costly emergency services,” Martinez told Fresnoland, “like emergency rooms, jails and other institutions.”
Like the Supreme Court’s written opinion, penned by Trump-appointment Justice Neil Gorsuch, response to the ruling fell largely along party-ideological lines.
Gorsuch, writing for the majority, acknowledged “homelessness is complex” and said “its causes are many,” but concluded the Constitution doesn’t allow judges to dictate a federal policy on homelessness.
“The question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses,” Gorsuch wrote. ….[The Amendment] “serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.”
Gorsuch also wrote that those who are penalized for sleeping outdoors can appeal by claiming “necessity defense,” as is available to all people in the criminal justice system. However, those people would still need to go to court to argue their cases.
In the court’s dissenting opinion, Obama-appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor slammed the high court, saying the ruling “punishes them for being homeless.”
“That is unconscionable and unconstitutional,” Sotomayor wrote. “Punishing people for their status is ‘cruel and unusual’ under the Eighth Amendment.”
Unpacking the ruling
But Friday’s decision didn’t fall entirely along red and blue political lines.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom — who has been critical of the court in the past – applauded the Supreme Court’s decision through a news release on social media.
“Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court provides state and local officials the definitive authority to implement and enforce policies to clear unsafe encampments from our street,” Newsom said in a statement posted on X. “This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years and limited their ability to deliver on common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities.”
Newsom was one of several governors who signaled early support for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case.
The case reached the Supreme Court after the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court ruled Grants Pass, Oregon’s policy amounted to “cruel and unusual” punishment, a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.
The small town of Grants Pass, Oregon — which Census data show has a population of less than 40,000 — pushed the issue all the way to the nation’s highest court, with the urging and support of several prominent governors, including Newsom.
Others, like Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, worried the ruling would clear the way for local governments to try and sweep such issues under the rug. In a statement posted on X, Bass said the ruling was “not surprising given the make-up of the Court but disappointing nonetheless.”
“This ruling must not be used as an excuse for cities across the country to attempt to arrest their way out of this problem or hide the homelessness crisis in the neighboring cities or jail,” Bass stated. “Neither will work, neither will save lives and that route is more expensive for taxpayers than actually solving the problem. The only way to address this crisis is to bring people indoors with housing supportive services.”
The National Homelessness Law Center “condemns” the ruling in a statement released today.
“Arresting or fining people for trying to survive is expensive, counterproductive, and cruel. This inhumane ruling…will make homelessness worse in Grants Pass and nationwide,” the statement says. “Cities are now even more empowered to neglect proven housing-based solutions and to arrest or fine those with no choice but to sleep outdoors. While we are disappointed, we are not surprised that this Supreme Court ruled against the interests of our poorest neighbors.”
Behind the numbers
Homelessness has been on the rise in Fresno and Madera counties for nearly a decade, since 2015. Last year in 2023, authorities counted about 4,493 people experiencing homelessness locally, according to the most recently available Point in Time count data by the Fresno Madera Continuum of Care.
Data by jurisdiction shows that the city of Fresno’s homeless population decreased from 190 people, or about 6%, between 2022 and 2023. Fresno County, Madera city and county, however, saw an increase in their population, leading to the increased number.
The Department of Housing And Urban Development’s 2023 Point In Time Count report found that California houses 28% — or 181,399 — of the country’s homeless population.
For local advocates like Martinez, Friday’s Supreme Court ruling on homelessness was a tough loss in a never-ending fight.
“People are tired of fighting for their rights. People are tired of starving. They’re tired of freezing, tired of not having shelter,” Martinez said. “We can’t blame individuals that are on the streets with their children because the cost of living is too high.”
The ruling sets a precedent that gives cities the constitutional right to penalize people for sleeping in public spaces. It still falls on federal, state and local governments to follow up on the Supreme Court’s ruling to create legislation to solve their respective challenges.
In California alone, the state has a shortage of over 10,000 beds to house people for mental healthcare or drug and alcohol treatment — an issue Newsom hopes will be solved by the newly passed Proposition 1.
Leave a comment