U.S. Supreme Court leaves in place ruling barring prosecution of homeless 2025 ado7

U.S. Supreme Court leaves in place ruling barring prosecution of homeless

16/12/2019

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear Boise’s defence of its policy of sometimes prosecuting homeless people for sleeping in public, after a lower court found ordinances in Idaho’s capital had violated the U.S. Constitution’s bar on cruel and unusual punishment.

The justices left in place a 2018 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that fining or jailing homeless people for staying outside or in unauthorized places if a bed at an emergency shelter is not available is unconstitutional. The city had appealed the ruling, arguing the decision threatened public health and safety.

U.S. cities have been struggling for years with how to address homelessness, putting in place various local laws.

The case centred on two Boise ordinances that prohibit camping or «disorderly conduct» by lodging or sleeping in public. The city said it needed to enforce the ordinances to prevent the formation of encampments that can lead to unsanitary conditions and crimes such as drug dealing and gang activity, and to keep public spaces accessible for residents, visitors and wildlife.

Current, former homeless sued city

The dispute began when six people — all current or former homeless Boise residents — argued in a 2009 lawsuit that the laws violate their constitutional rights.

They had each been prosecuted under the ordinances and fined between $25 and $75. Five were sentenced to time served, while one homeless man twice served one day in jail.

The 9th Circuit last year ruled the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibits punishing homeless individuals if there are more of them than available shelter beds. The ruling allowed the plaintiffs to seek an injunction against enforcement of the city’s ordinances.

«As long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter,» the Appeals Court said.

No citations if shelters are full

Boise said it does not issue citations if the city’s three homeless shelters are full. The plaintiffs said the two Christian-based shelters have policies to never turn away anyone for lack of space, so police have continuously enforced the ordinances.

The 9th Circuit noted those facilities could still refuse to shelter homeless people who exceed limits of the number of days they can stay or who object to mandatory religious programs.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, Boise said the 9th Circuit’s «far-reaching and catastrophic» decision will undercut the ability of municipalities to maintain health and safety and imperil other laws such as those against public defecation and urination.

The plaintiffs called the city’s arguments «dramatically overwrought.»

What’s happening here? See how some Canadian communities are handling homelessness in 2019.