The federal Ninth Judicial Circuit Court (the Ninth Circuit) covers most of the U.S. west coast states from Alaska to California. In consideration of those who are unhoused, the Ninth Circuit has staked out and maintained an activist position on the use of public lands by people who are unhoused. The Ninth Circuit has ruled that, unless other alternatives were available, people who are unhoused could not simply be ‘swept off’ public hand. The court’s decision about the right of people who are unhoused to occupy public land goes by the legal name of ‘Martin v Boise.’
This ‘right to remain’ has angered governments at state, region, and community levels. These largely favour draconian ideas of managing a national homeless crisis by civic programs that involve findings of ‘illegal occupation.’ In much of the U.S., these kinds of rulings are followed by legal homelessness sweeps.
Not in the Ninth Circuit, however, where concerted efforts have been made to alter the Martin v Boise ruling that protects citizens with no other place to go. These attempts have so far been unsuccessful, including a failed attempt in 20191 to involve the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to consider that matter.
However, on January 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear a related case: City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson. It will be the first major case on homelessness to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court since the 1980s.
In theory, U.S. Supreme Court’s support for the Ninth Circuit’s ruling could crack open a doorway to protect people who are unhoused, not just in the Ninth Circuit but everywhere in the country.
However, in the last few years, the leaning of the U.S. Supreme Court has become more conservative. In the current political climate, it is possible the court’s ruling might favour local governments and citizens groups interested in ‘solving’ the national homelessness crisis by treating people who are homeless as criminals. Denying them use of public lands would be enforced in this instance by declaring people who are unhoused to be lawbreakers and threatening with fines and incarceration.
For a summary of some of the issues, read more at The National Alliance to End Homelessness: Statement on Landmark Supreme Court Case on Homelessness
For considerably more detail on the evolving issue of the use of public land by people who are unhoused, read more in The Guardian: ‘Criminal for existing’: US’s unhoused still fear sweeps as supreme court to take on shelter case
Footnotes
- Read about this at the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty: Supreme Court Lets Martin v. Boise Stand: Homeless Persons Cannot Be Punished for Sleeping in Absence of Alternatives
