The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case over whether it is constitutional for local governments to impose penalties on individuals for camping outside when space is unavailable at local homeless shelters.
An appeals court ruled in Martin v. City of Boise that imposing civil fines on people experiencing homelessness and vagrants for public camping would violate the Eighth Amendment if the individuals in question did not have access to shelter elsewhere, claiming that such measures would punish them for “an unavoidable consequence of being homeless.”
The ruling could be overturned when City of Grants Pass v. Johnson goes before the Supreme Court, possibly in April. The justices agreed on Friday to hear the case, which concerns a municipal ordinance in Grants Pass, Oregon, that fines people found to be camping on public sidewalks and streets.
“The consequences of inaction are dire for those living both in and near encampments: crime, fires, the reemergence of medieval diseases, environmental harm, and record levels of drug overdoses and deaths on public streets,” said Grants Pass’ attorneys, according to The Washington Post.
Officials from dozens of states and municipalities have reportedly been hoping that the high court would overturn the Martin v. City of Boise decision by ruling in favor of Grants Pass, claiming that Martin has left jurisdictions without the legal tools to properly manage the problems associated with homelessness and vagrancy, per Vox.
In Dallas, homelessness and vagrancy have increased in recent years. As previously reported by The Dallas Express, a survey of residents found that 76% were dissatisfied with the levels of homelessness, vagrancy, and panhandling seen in their neighborhoods.
The “one-stop-shop” housing and social services model utilized by Haven for Hope has been credited with reducing unsheltered homelessness by 77% in San Antonio’s downtown area and has polled favorably among Dallas residents. Some local stakeholders in Dallas are looking to launch a similar project, but it remains to be seen whether City officials will support the effort.
In defense of the Martin decision, advocates for people experiencing homelessness are claiming that ordinances like the one Grants Pass sought to enforce would essentially criminalize homeless people.
“The issue before the Court is whether cities can punish homeless residents simply for existing without access to shelter,” said Ed Johnson, director of litigation at the Oregon Law Center, according to Cal Matters.
