Supreme Court Showdown: The Controversial Ruling That Could Affect Homelessness Nationwide

However, for Robert Martin, the city's less attractive quarters, its dead ends and back alleys, served as his intermittent home for 15 years.

When the city's homeless shelters reached capacity, Martin sought refuge in whatever nooks and crannies he could find. "There were times I've slept in garage stairwells, on cement, slept in rock, up under overpasses in the rocks and dirt," he recounted.

In Boise, however, sleeping or camping on public property was deemed illegal. Martin was among many who were ticketed and fined for sleeping in public spaces. Howard Belodoff, a representative of Idaho Legal Aid Services, saw a constitutional issue in Boise's camping ordinance and decided to take it to federal court. "Robert's case, I thought it was actually a vivid portrayal of the situation that homeless people find themselves in," Belodoff stated. "Here's a guy, he has no place to sleep. He's been walking around all night because he's been warned you can't quote-unquote 'camp,' which just means you can't have a blanket around you."

In 2009, Belodoff filed a lawsuit in federal court, known as Martin v. City of Boise, arguing that the city had violated the 8th Amendment of the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishments by leaving those without homes nowhere to legally sleep. "It's 'cruel and unusual' in the true sense of the word," Belodoff said, "because every single one of us rich, poor, old, young, male, female they need to sleep."

June 03, 2024

Nine years later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, concurred with Belodoff. The court considered whether "the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment bars a city from prosecuting people criminally for sleeping on public property," and concluded that "it does."

San Francisco's Mayor London Breed blamed the Martin v. City of Boise ruling for exacerbating the city's homelessness crisis. The court order prevents San Francisco from clearing sidewalk encampments unless the city can guarantee a place to sleep for everyone it displaces a daunting task in a city with over 8,000 homeless individuals and fewer than 4,000 shelter beds.

According to the HUD 2022 Annual Homeless Assessment Report, there is a nationwide shortage of shelter beds, with approximately 188,000 more people needing shelter than there are beds available. However, the ruling only applies to the nine Western states under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. In the rest of the country, 14 states have laws criminalizing camping in public places, and 27 states have vagrancy and loitering laws that can be used to displace those sleeping in public.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional scholar and dean of UC Berkeley Law School, explained, "What the 9th Circuit has said is that a person can't be punished for being homeless if there aren't adequate shelter beds or places for them to go."

In San Rafael, California, Mayor Kate Colin is almost powerless to move the person living in a tent beside City Hall due to the lack of available shelter beds. "Every time we passed an ordinance, we were sued either immediately or within the time frame that that can happen," Colin said. She expressed frustration at having to explain to constituents that people camped on the streets cannot be moved: "People don't want to hear that San Rafael doesn't have the independent ability to work with our unhoused community," she said.

In contrast to many cities complaining about the ruling, Grants Pass, Oregon, has taken action by appealing to the Supreme Court. Theane Evangelis, the attorney representing Grants Pass, urged the justices to overturn the ruling during the case's argument in April. She warned the court: "It would be a disaster if Martin were to remain on the books in any form."

The Supreme Court's decision, expected this month, could influence homeless policy across the country. Evangelis expressed concern about the potential nationwide impact of the 9th Circuit's ruling: "All of us living here within the 9th Circuit have seen the effects firsthand of these decisions. And that's why if the Supreme Court were to agree with the 9th Circuit, those conditions would spread to the rest of the country. And that would be the opposite of solving this problem."

Dean Chemerinsky, however, believes there's a compelling argument in favor of the 9th Circuit's ruling, stating, "you can't make something a crime if there's no alternative."

The Supreme Court's decision carries significant implications. Chemerinsky explained, "For homeless people, the question is, are they gonna face criminal punishment because they have nowhere else to live? For cities, the question would be, what can cities do lawfully to deal with their unhoused population? And for the Constitution, the question is, what's this gonna mean for the 8th Amendment?"

Robert Martin, no longer living on the streets, empathizes with those still seeking places to sleep: "Being homeless should never equate to an unlawful act," he said. "Being homeless is an unforeseen and an unfortunate circumstance."

For Howard Belodoff, the attorney who initiated the case, it's not just about the rights of the homeless, but also their humanity. "They feel so powerless, 'cause nobody listens and nobody cares," he said. "For the first time they feel like they're a person and they're recognized."