By Sheri Chapman, general counsel

Cal Cities joined the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) last week in filing an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse two lower court rulings and clarify that ordinances restricting camping on public property do not infringe on a person’s constitutional rights. 

In Martin v. Boise, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that Boise, Idaho, cannot enforce its anti-camping ordinance if there are more homeless people than shelter beds available. The court deemed that prosecuting homeless individuals for sleeping in public places violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

In Johnson v. Grants Pass, that same court expanded the Boise decision by prohibiting a small Oregon city from administering civil citations for violating its anti-camping ordinances. With these and other recent court decisions, it has become increasingly difficult to determine how or when a city may lawfully administer its public camping regulations — even when to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare.   

What does the Cal Cities and CSAC brief say?

The Grants Pass case presents the following question: “Does the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?”

In its brief, Grants Pass argues that it does not, and that the 9th Circuit misapplied the Eighth Amendment. It noted that the case concerns prohibitions against the act of camping on public property that apply to everyone and are not based on a person’s status. The city also argued that local governments have the authority and the obligation to regulate the use of public property for people’s health, safety, enjoyment, and general welfare.

The Cal Cities and CSAC amicus brief supports the request to reverse the Boise and Grants Pass decisions. The brief outlines the many resources and programs that local governments have devoted to reducing homelessness, as well as the adverse impacts on the public’s health and safety that have resulted from prohibiting ordinances that regulate camping on public property.

The Grants Pass case has garnered a lot of interest. A variety of stakeholders have filed over 40 different amici briefs.

What’s next?

The case is scheduled for oral argument on April 22. Cal Cities will continue to track this case and will report when the Supreme Court issues a decision. In the meantime, cities with questions about the impact of the case should consult with their city attorney.