LA mayor blasts Supreme Court over homeless decision

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass condemned a Supreme Court ruling Friday that allows municipalities to arrest people camping in public spaces, saying it was "not surprising, given the make-up of the court." That puts her at odds with the governor of California, mayor of San Francisco, and virtually every other major politician in the state, who say that the ruling will allow state and local officials to better manage their public spaces.

"This ruling must not be used as an excuse for cities across the country to attempt to arrest their way out of this problem or hide the homelessness crisis in neighboring cities or in jail. Neither will work, neither will save lives and that route is more expensive for taxpayers than actually solving the problem," Bass said in a statement.

"The only way to address this crisis is to bring people indoors with housing and supportive services. In the City of Los Angeles, we will continue leading with this approach, which helped move thousands more Angelenos inside last year than the year before. We cannot go backwards - we must continue innovating and moving with intention and urgency until every person experiencing homelessness is able to access housing, services and support," she continued.

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed with the city of Grants Pass, Oregon that its ordinance making it illegal to camp on public property was not unconstitutional. It overturned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Martin v. Boise that prohibited cities from punishing homeless residents for camping if they did not have anywhere to live.

Bass' statement acknowledges fears that the ruling will allow cities to punish the most vulnerable and underserved members of their communities, even as wages stagnate, inflation spikes and housing shortages persist. The mayor's positioning on the ruling is in stark contrast to that of other California leaders.

"This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years and limited their ability to deliver on common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities," Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.

Newsom, the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, as well as other California and western jurisdictions filed amicus briefs siding with Grants Pass, arguing that the court should grant its writ of certiorari and reverse the 9th Circuit decision. Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, 23-175 (S. Ct., filed Aug. 22, 2023).

"San Francisco has made significant investments in shelter and housing, and we will continue to lead with offers of services from our hard-working City employees. But too often these offers are rejected, and we need to be able to enforce our laws, especially to prevent long-term encampments," San Francisco Mayor London N. Breed said in a statement.

Breed said that San Francisco will continue to offer shelter but will not allow those who reject it to camp in the streets.

"It's not healthy, safe, or compassionate for people on the street and it's not acceptable for our neighborhoods," Breed said. "We will now adjust our city policies to be in line with the ruling by the Supreme Court. We have been working with the City Attorney and City staff on potential outcomes prior to the ruling, and now we will review this final decision with the City Attorney's Office before announcing and implementing our new policies."

Attorneys in Los Angeles who advocated on behalf of homeless individuals said the decision may compel elected officials in areas under tremendous pressure from their constituents to implement more punitive policies towards the homeless. Two major lawsuits were pending in federal court in Los Angeles, one filed on behalf of homeless veterans over the lack of housing, and one against the city over the lack of transparency in its homeless programs.

The National Veterans Foundation and individual plaintiffs who filed the veterans' case are represented by attorneys at Public Counsel Law Center, Inner City Law Center, Robins Kaplan LLP Law Firm and Brown Goldstein & Levy LLP. Jeffrey Powers et al. v. Denis Richard McDonough et al., 2:22-cv08357 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 15, 2022).

"This is a tragic decision that will have devastating consequences, enabling cities in California and across the nation to consider whether they, too, would like to criminalize the condition of being homeless and punish people for circumstances that are beyond their control," said Silvana Naguib, Directing Attorney of Public Counsel's Homelessness Prevention Law Project.

Inner City Law Center's CEO, Adam Murray, said the decision is unlikely to have an impact on lawsuits and legislation in Los Angeles County: "Mayor Bass was supportive of the 9th Circuit ruling and did not join voices to do what the Supreme Court did. That gives me hope she recognizes that criminalization is not effective public policy."

Western Center on Law and Policy's director of policy advocacy, Brandon Greene, said Grants Pass will have devastating consequences on unhoused individuals, particularly Black and brown California residents who are disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system.

"This will do nothing to solve the underlying issues of housing unaffordability, a deficit of resources and other things we know actually work, and investing in the apparatus to enforce this ruling will take away the much-needed resources that should be invested in the solutions that we know work," Greene said. "Cities that have wanted to go forward with even more draconian ordinances will now be more emboldened to go forward, and advocates will have to figure out how to challenge what is to come."

Elizabeth Mitchell, partner with Umhofer, Mitchell & King LLP, said she was "cautiously optimistic" about the ruling "because it can require cities to do something [about homelessness].

Mitchell and her colleagues sued the city and county of Los Angeles on claims that political leaders weren't doing enough to address the homelessness crisis and reduce street encampments by creating more shelter beds. The city settled with her client, LA Alliance for Human Rights, in 2022 and agreed to build space for some 5,000 shelter beds and reduce thousands of encampments by specific district-by-district deadlines. The city was later accused by The Alliance of not complying with the settlement agreement, and the case continues before U.S. District Judge David O. Carter.

The county settled with The Alliance in 2023 and agreed to create nearly 1,000 clinical shelter beds for homeless people with addictions or mental disorders. LA Alliance for Human Rights v. City and County of Los Angeles, 2:20-cv-02291 (C.D. Cal., filed March 10, 2020).

"I think, from our perspective, we are thrilled the oppressive Boise doctrine has been lifted. Cities now have an added tool to regulate public spaces. Encampments are not safe places," Mitchell said.

"I am concerned that some cities are not interested in helping individuals and will use this to sweep people into neighboring jurisdictions," she continued. "It is not feasible for cities to jail their way out of this. It doesn't actually help to put somebody in jail. They get released and the cycle repeats itself."