Criminalizing homelessness in Fresno? Lawsuit claims city's ordinance punishes poverty

A class action lawsuit now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California asks a question that cities across the country continue to confront: Can a municipality respond to visible homelessness by arresting people for existing in public space when it lacks the capacity to offer them a real alternative? In Fresno, that question has sharpened into a constitutional challenge that goes to the heart of civil rights, dignity and the meaning of equal protection under law.

The lawsuit, filed by civil rights attorney Kevin Little, alleges that Fresno's anti-camping ordinance unconstitutionally criminalizes homelessness through arrests, citations, property seizures and prosecutions that punish poverty rather than conduct. The suit seeks class-wide relief on behalf of unhoused residents, naming two men, Joseph Quinney and Wickey Two Hands, as representative plaintiffs. It asserts more than two dozen causes of action, including false arrest, malicious prosecution, due process violations and disability discrimination. At its core, the complaint argues that Fresno has built a system that treats homelessness as a crime instead of a social condition requiring accommodation and care.

Fresno adopted its ordinance in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2024 decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson, which held that cities may enforce certain public camping restrictions even when shelter beds remain unavailable. That ruling shifted the legal landscape, but it did not erase constitutional limits. Cities still must enforce laws in a manner consistent with due process, equal protection and federal disability statutes. The Fresno lawsuit situates itself squarely in that remaining constitutional space, arguing that the city crossed those lines in practice, even if the ordinance appears neutral on its face.

The facts alleged in the complaint illustrate the human consequences of enforcement-first policy. Wickey Two Hands, a 78-year-old man, became the first person in California prosecuted under a post-Grants Pass ordinance. His case drew public attention not because it was unusual, but because it was emblematic. Prosecutors ultimately dismissed the case after a judge found a speedy trial violation. Joseph Quinney, a 52-year-old man with severely impaired vision who uses a walking stick, also saw his charges dismissed months later without explanation. In both cases, officers seized personal property that the city allegedly never returned.

Those dismissals did not erase the harm. Arrest, jail, prosecution and property loss impose real costs, especially on elderly and disabled people living without shelter. The lawsuit argues that these arrests occurred in the context of "sweeps" that provided little to no meaningful accommodation for individuals who could not quickly move, comply or secure alternative shelter. In that sense, the suit frames Fresno's approach as one that weaponizes administrative deadlines and police discretion against the most vulnerable.

City Attorney Andrew Janz has responded by asserting confidence in the ordinance's legality and by emphasizing that the law punishes behavior, not housing status. He has pointed to Quinney's statements during arrest as evidence that enforcement does not target unhoused people per se. That defense echoes a familiar refrain in civil rights litigation: neutrality in theory, fairness in name. But constitutional law has long recognized that discriminatory enforcement and disparate impact can render facial neutrality meaningless.

The complaint directly addresses that tension. It alleges that Fresno uses a facially neutral ordinance as a tool to criminalize poverty, destroy property without due process and expose unhoused people to repeated arrest despite the city's acknowledged lack of shelter capacity. Fresno counts more than 4,300 unhoused residents, with nearly 2,800 sleeping unsheltered. The city offers fewer than 1,000 year-round emergency shelter beds, most of which remain full. Even those limited options grow more fragile as funding shortfalls threaten existing housing programs with closure.

These facts matter legally because constitutional rights do not evaporate in the face of policy frustration. The Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act all impose obligations on state actors to avoid punishment that is arbitrary, discriminatory or cruel in effect. Arresting elderly or disabled individuals for sleeping outdoors when no realistic alternative exists raises serious questions under each of those frameworks. So does seizing and destroying personal property without notice or opportunity to reclaim it.

Beyond doctrine, the case forces a moral reckoning. Homelessness does not arise from moral failure; it emerges from structural conditions that include housing shortages, wage stagnation, disability, aging and inadequate mental health care. When cities respond by expanding police powers rather than housing capacity, they shift responsibility onto those least able to bear it. Enforcement may clear sidewalks temporarily, but it does not resolve homelessness. It displaces it, often at great human and financial cost.

Supporters of aggressive ordinances often frame them as necessary tools to restore public order. That concern deserves acknowledgment. Cities must manage shared space, ensure safety and respond to community frustration. But constitutional governance requires proportionality and humanity. Arresting someone for declining nonexistent shelter does not restore order; it deepens instability. Prosecuting cases that collapse under constitutional scrutiny does not promote safety; it erodes trust.

The Fresno lawsuit does not ask the court to solve homelessness outright. It asks the court to enforce constitutional boundaries and to recognize that enforcement without accommodation crosses those boundaries. Injunctive relief could force the city to pause arrests, revise procedures, return property or implement disability accommodations. Damages could deter future misconduct. Perhaps most importantly, judicial oversight could shift the policy conversation from punishment to problem-solving.

History offers reason for cautious optimism. Civil rights litigation has repeatedly nudged public institutions toward more humane practices, even when initial resistance runs strong. Courts do not govern cities, but they can insist that cities govern within the law. When they do, space opens for policy innovation: expanded shelter, supportive housing, outreach-led engagement and services that meet people where they are.

The Fresno case arrives at a moment of national recalibration. Grants Pass removed one constitutional barrier, but it did not grant cities a blank check. How Fresno chooses to respond--to litigate, to reform or to do both--will shape not only this case but also the city's civic identity. A resolution grounded in rights, dignity and practical compassion would benefit everyone who calls Fresno home--housed and unhoused alike.

If the law means anything, it must protect those with the least power as vigorously as it protects those with the most. This lawsuit insists on that principle. With thoughtful adjudication and good-faith policy change, Fresno can move beyond criminalization and toward a model that recognizes homelessness not as a crime to punish, but as a condition society has a shared obligation to address.