On Monday, the US Supreme Court opted not to take up the City of Boise’s appeal in the Martin v. Boise case which would decide whether the city could ticket homeless people for “camping” in public.
The case came forward after Boise has an ordinance (adopted in 1922) that prohibited people from sleeping in public spaces, however, last year, the 9th Circuit Court appeals cited cities could not prosecute people for sleeping on the streets should there be nowhere else for them to stay.
This case has been going on since 2009 (summary below)
Today’s news is disappointing. We believe that the 9th Circuit’s most recent decision in this case leaves the city’s fundamental ability to protect public health and safety on its own streets very uncertain. Without further clarification by the courts, our most vulnerable residents – the very people this suit purports to be protecting – would be victimized by the conditions in camps that could crop up. Without the ability to enforce this ordinance, much of what we’ve accomplished in providing permanent supportive housing and other services for those experiencing homelessness could be jeopardized. To avoid that, I encourage the incoming city administration and city council to continue fighting this case in local federal court.
Back in August, here was the press release from the city of Boise:
The City of Boise today filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ controversial decision in Martin v. City of Boise – formally asking the court to consider the case.
The 9th Circuit’s decision effectively creates a constitutional right to camp, holding that cities cannot prevent anyone from camping until they first provide enough shelter beds for everyone, thus exempting public encampments from a host of public health and safety laws.
“Cities, like Boise, who are already providing forward-thinking services to those experiencing homelessness, must have all the tools available to respond to the public health and safety dilemmas created by public encampments,” said Mayor Dave Bieter. “If the 9th Circuit’s ruling is allowed to stand then cities will not have the tools they need to prevent a humanitarian crisis on their own streets. We hope the Supreme Court takes this case to restore the power of local communities to regulate the use of their streets, parks, and other public areas.”
In Martin, the 9th Circuit held, over the dissent of six judges, that enforcement of laws barring public camping and sleeping violates the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments if “there is a greater number of homeless individuals in [the jurisdiction] than the number of available beds [in shelters].”
But as one of the judges who dissented from the 9th Circuit’s denial of rehearing en banc correctly predicted, the expansive rationale of the court’s decision “has begun wreaking havoc on local governments and businesses” and, if not reversed, “will soon prevent local governments from enforcing a host of public health and safety laws.”
“This important case is about ensuring that cities have all the tools they need to protect public health and safety,” said Theane Evangelis of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, counsel for Boise. “The tragedy is that the 9th Circuit’s decision harms the very people it purports to protect. It takes away an important tool cities have to stop the proliferation of permanent encampments, which undermine cities’ efforts to provide shelter and services to the most vulnerable.”
“The decision is unworkable in practice and is already sowing confusion across the 9th Circuit and tying the hands of cities that are being forced to suspend enforcement of their public-camping laws. The Supreme Court should grant review to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision,” added Evangelis.
Boise’s petition argues that the 9th Circuit’s unprecedented decision conflicts with multiple decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as decisions of the California Supreme Court and of the 1st, 4th, 7th, and 11th circuits. More than that, however, by creating a de facto constitutional right to live on public sidewalks and in public parks, the court’s decision cripples the ability of the more than 1,600 municipalities in the 9th Circuit to protect the health and safety of their communities. Likewise, it impedes efforts by Boise and other cities to connect those living anonymously and transiently in sprawling encampments with resources available to help them.
Since 2014, the City of Boise’s policy has been to suspend ticketing for camping in the city when there is no room in local homeless shelters. In 2018, a total of 30 citations for camping were written in Boise. In all of 2017, only six citations were written.
In the meantime, the City of Boise continues to work with a wide variety of community partners to create badly needed resources for the 120-140 chronically homeless in our community. New Path Community Housing, Idaho’s first Housing First project, opened in the fall with room for 40 chronically homeless families and individuals. A similar project for the benefit of veterans experiencing homelessness veterans will also be a reality in the coming months.
Martin v. City of Boise Case History
- The case began in 2009, when six individuals who were cited and/or convicted under Boise’s ordinances restricting public camping and sleeping filed a Complaint against the city under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that enforcement of those ordinances violated the 8th Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause.
- After an initial round of litigation in both the district court and the 9th Circuit over threshold issues, the district court granted Boise’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs could not collaterally attack their convictions through a 1983 lawsuit and that they lacked standing to seek declaratory relief.
- On appeal, the 9th Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and held that enforcement of Boise’s ordinances constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment. The 9th Circuit denied rehearing en banc on April 1, 2019 over the vigorous dissent of six judges, thus setting the stage for Boise’s certiorari petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- The City of Boise’s petition for a writ of certiorari is attached with this press release.
- The City of Boise is represented by Theane D. Evangelis and Theodore B. Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
Here is what California State Assemblyman Kevin Kiley said on Mondays decision:
Assemblyman Kevin Kiley Issues Statement on U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision Not to Hear Homelessness Case
SACRAMENTO – Assemblyman Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) released the following statement today in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the appeal of Martin v. City of Boise, a landmark case that prohibits local governments from enforcing camping restrictions in public places:
“While it is disappointing that the Supreme Court denied certiorari, despite dozens of California cities supporting the petition, I’m confident that it’s only a matter of time before the Court overrules the untenable rule of law announced in the Boise case.
“In the meantime, this denial makes the work of the Legislature in the coming year even more urgent. Californians cite homelessness as the number one issue facing our state. The Legislature cannot let another year go by without dramatically improving access to shelter, mental health services, and substance abuse treatment. We also must take meaningful action to remove barriers to housing and provide law enforcement with every available tool within the boundaries of the Boise decision.
“Failure to act will only result in more tragedies for Californians who are in need, and further deterioration of our communities.”
Assemblyman Kevin Kiley represents the 6th Assembly District, which includes the Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado County communities of Cameron Park, El Dorado Hills, Fair Oaks, Folsom, Granite Bay, Lincoln, Loomis, Orangevale, Penryn, Rocklin, Roseville, and Sheridan.
5 comments
Yeah! Let them shit on the sidewalks where your kids are walking to school! Let them do it in front of your house because the sidewalk is for public use! They can then spit on your family members and throw liquids at them! Terrific! Or, if you own a restaurant abutting the street and sidewalk, they can take a crap there where the people dining can watch and enjoy their meal! Maybe the members of the 9th Circuit can just take them all into their houses> That I’d love to see!
They sure aren’t “camping” in from of my house! If they try, they will get to see how my lawn sprinklers work.
This is stupid, if they can’t afford housing how are they going to pay the ticket?!?!?
Nobody ever accused politicians of being smart, Troy!
Our neighborhood park is useless now because of all the tents and homeless living there. The grass reeks of urine, there’s broken glass and beer bottles next to the playground, and there is a general unsafe vibe every time I walk past the park. It’s such a shame people are putting homeless before children. My heart hurts for our kids future, as it’s already being taken away from them.
Comments are closed.