Supreme Court Ruling about Sleeping in Public Space Public Comment from Lynn MikkelsenAimee Brunckhorst
From: Lynn Mikkelsen <mikkelsen@centurytel.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:35 PM
To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment
Subject: EXTERNAL Supreme Court Ruling about Sleeping in Public Space
Attachments: Sleeping in Public.pdf, Camping in Public.pdf
[NOTICE: This message includes an attachment -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the
content is safe.]
January 23, 2023
Hello Council Members and City Employees,
The Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that you can't arrest people who are sleeping in public if
there are no other options (see attachments). The warming shelter is often full. Other public
facilities need to be provided, temporary or permanent.
Thank you,
Lynn Mikkelsen, LCPC
1
1 /23/23, 7:44 PM Supreme Court Upholds Ruling, Homeless People Cannot Be Criminally Punished for Sleeping Outside if No Alternatives Exist I N...
Irr", "
�IUw�/r""�
IIIIII`IIIII'���I National Low Income
Housing Coalition
Supreme Court Upholds Ruling,
Homeless People Cannot Be
Criminally Punished for Sleeping
Outside if No Alternatives Exist
Dec 23, 2019
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a petition to review Martin v. Boise on December 16,
upholding the Ninth Circuit Court ruling that people experiencing homelessness cannot be
criminally punished for sleeping outside on public property if there are no available
alternatives. The Supreme Court's decision makes the Ninth Circuit Court ruling binding for
states in the Court's jurisdiction: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, and Washington. It also sets an influential national precedent.
The lawsuit, led by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP), Idaho
Legal Aid Services, and Latham & Watkins LLP, challenged enforcement of Boise's Camping and
Disorderly Conduct Ordinances, which allow people experiencing homelessness to be ticketed
or otherwise criminally punished for sleeping in public spaces. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled
that, in the absence of adequate alternatives, criminalizing people experiencing homelessness
for sleeping in public constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" and therefore violates their
Eighth Amendment rights.
Some city officials in California and other Western states expressed disapproval of the
Supreme Court's decision, stating the Boise ruling makes it more difficult to provide services to
those in need and poses a public health and safety hazard. NLIHC and other advocates for the
homeless, however, lauded the Supreme Court's decision noting that criminalizing people
experiencing homelessness does not address the underlying causes of homelessness, does
nothing to solve the homelessness crisis, and violates the civil rights of people experiencing
homelessness.
https://nlihc.org/resource/supreme-court-upholds-ruling-homeless-people-cannot-be-criminally-punished-sleeping 1 /2
1 /23/23, 7:44 PM Supreme Court Upholds Ruling, Homeless People Cannot Be Criminally Punished for Sleeping Outside if No Alternatives Exist I N...
In a statement on the decision, NLIHC president and CEO Diane Yentel said, "cities must stop
attempting to criminalize and hide their communities' homeless people and instead work
toward providing real solutions, starting with the only thing that truly ends homelessness:
access to safe, affordable, accessible homes."
The Supreme Court's decision may complicate anticipated efforts by the Trump administration
to incentivize the use of local law enforcement in response to homelessness. Robert Marbut,
the recently confirmed executive director of the United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness (USICH), has in the past endorsed expanding law enforcement's authority to
arrest people experiencing homelessness for violating minor local ordinances (see Memo, ',,,2,,',
hit % nlihc.or resource trum -a oints-robert-marbut-executive-director-united-states-
(���������������������������//,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,//,,,
p g p pp
nteragency-goungll)).
While the Boise ruling is critical to ensuring the rights of people experiencing homelessness are
preserved, it remains imperative to continue pushing for solutions to homelessness, including
increasing the supply of deeply affordable housing.
More about Martin v. Boise is at 21,D)
Statement from Diane Yentel, NLIHC President and CEO k/'41`ck
(http :Izjbllli t ly/34PLgck)
More about the criminalization of homelessness is at:
(http //btly/2s6ukRJ)
NLCHP's recent report on efforts to criminalize homelessness is at 0Y g
(httpS;: bit lyl2M8nXEg)
https://nlihc.org/resource/supreme-court-upholds-ruling-homeless-people-cannot-be-criminally-punished-sleeping 2/2
1 /23/23, 7:46 PM
MRSC - New Ninth Circuit Ruling Addresses Anti -Camping Ordinances
�kB94`a1�\��I���pura�maraRmrIM R �uw�„
Iml°raoweirliri loczd gov(,sr°11 rvrot'.wlt'ts
Search....
............
Hainr�e - S>.&V Ilnifairrvroed > M IR aC Ilrosig hl: II! [og - Ociiober 202.2. > New Ninth Circuit Ruling Addresses Anti -Camping Ordinances
New Ninth Circuit Ruling Addresses Anti -Camping Ordinances
October bet 17, 2022 Ihzy Oskar Rey
C:a.1egciiry: Court II:Ysaeiisiiesins and AGO Olpiiinr sins„ II binnetessneass
C of nta.ct Us
Pairaneirs
Rosters
11 astt innointh,'the federal Ninth Circuit C.ouuir: of Appeals iissued a decision that proviides clarification airmd gulidaince oin aii cairinlpliing oircilinaairttces to
nnu i6ciilpaliitiies in the Ninth C:liIl it (whiiclh liincludes Washington). t1he case,./cul•Srs^aon er. 01y of Grantas Pans', is a follow up to the Marlin v, CffyofBoise
case, which was oiriigiiinalily decided !!in 2015,
The court in Martin ruled that enforcement of anti -camping ordinances against individuals experiencing homelessness violates the Eighth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution if no alternatives to sleeping in public are available. If it backgrouuind, see MRRSC"s welb1page IReguulabon of Llnaautlhoriixed Cannpiing,
oiite:mriing, and Sol[liciitaltiioin of Aid and the Ilzlog a.irltiicles, Its Your Carrying Ordinance Coins t1i tu Jffl"a 2 and at Aire II_oca Covarninaais Doling lien Response
to Mahrtiwa er. G;'G1y of Boise?
Factual Background
TC he L. irr deirliyiiirng'fraclts o'f „lrrfarusrrwa are qLu Ludt se, shin lll[�ar'Ito Martigi,. 11he Oiregoirn cli'ty o'f Graaira'Its Ilsass lhad 2a seriies o'f ordiiirn2ainces'tlhat Ipu•ollalilkroli'ted sleelpliirhg �2airnd
carni, taken as a whole, those oirdliirnairnce?s pirolhiibiited sleelC:rliirng airnd cairrrhlCr ing in public IrAaces tlhirouuglhouut the clity. Ilirhlitlial viiolatiicrns of the
https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/october-2022/new-9th-circuit-ruling-on-anti-camping-ordinances#::text=The court in Martin ruled,sleeping ... 1/3
1 /23/23, 7:46 PM MRSC - New Ninth Circuit Ruling Addresses Anti -Camping Ordinances
ordliirnairnces resulted liirn a civil[ ciitaboirn airnd moirneltary liiirne. II lowever, two or more vliolaboirns of the airntii camlpiiirng ordliirnairnces could give rise to a "Ipairk
exc[usiion ou°deu°," whlich, lif vliofated, would serve as a Ibasiis f ou° a cu°iiirmnliirnal trespass clitaboirn.
lirn 2013, the Grairmts (pass City Couirncii[ coirnveirned a coirrflmuirniity rouirndtall te% to "°lideir di:y soludoirns to the curreirmt vagu°airncy Ipu°olla[eim°" Oirne of the Ip[airnirned
actions f roirn the rouirndtall l[e was increased eirml orcemeirnt of the airnd camlpiiirng ordiiirnairnces. IBetweeirn 2014 airnd 2018, the city [issued a total of 574 tiiclkets
under fits airnd caimlpliirng airnd air d °s[eelpliirng ordliirnairnces.
The Ipau°tiies dlisagu°eed oirn [mow imairny liinvoluntau°y homeless liirndlivliduals [lived liirn the city, but Ipoliint liirn dime couirmts for 2018 airnd 2019 iirndlicated tlheu°e were
at [east 600. And tllmere was no dispute that Grairmts (pass had f au° more homeless liirndlivlidualls thairn avaiifalla[e slhe[ter Ibeds,
After the 2018 iirnlitiial decision liirn Martin, homeless iiirndiiviidua[s liirn Grairmts (pass f ii[ed a class action comlplaiiirmt agaiiirnst the city seelkiirng a declau°atiioirn that
eirmf ou°ceirneirmt of airnd caimlpliirng ou°dliirnairnces agaiiirnst them was uirncoirnstiitudoirnal airnd sought airn liirnjuirnctiioirn to prevent the city f roirn coirndi nuliirng to eirmf once
the taws. "f heu°eafteu°, Grairmts (Pass ameirnded fits air d camlpiiirng ordliirnairnce to exclude "s[eelpiiirng"" l rom the def iiirniitiioirn of camlpiiirng. 'The ciit 's Iposiitiioirn was ill )at
by removiiirng liirnvo[uirmtau°y coirnduct Weelpiingj f roirn the def iiirnlidoirn of camlpiiirng (which liirnc[uded use of Ibeddliirng airnd teirmts), the ordliirnairnce comlp[iied wlitllm the
couu°fs holdliirng liirn Marten. "f'he Johnson court: disagreed,
Key Takeaways
fm�,
„ lohnson court: noted that the core [issues liirnvo[viiirng eirmf orceirneirmt of air d cairmfllpliirng ou°dliirnairnces !is goveri ned liirn [au°ge (pain Iby Martin. Soil, several[ aspects , noted
of the case are irnotewou°thy airnd wou°th revliewliirng liirn more detail[.
Class actions are an option for plaintiffs seeking to challenge laws that disproportionately impact homeless individuals.
Martin liirnvo[ved civil[ rights act claiims asserted by liirndlivlidual Ipfaliirmtiif f s t was not a class action, Il irn lohnson, the City of Grairmts (Pass au°gued that the irrial
court: einred liirn ceu°tiif`yiing a class def lined as:
All involuntarily homeless individuals living in Grants Pass, Oregon, including homeless individuals who sometimes sleep outside city limits to
avoid harassment and punishment by [the City] as addressed in this lawsuit.
Class ceu°tliFicatiioirn !is a coirnplex tolplic, ofteirn used to coirnplile imairny sirnal[ c[aiims liirmto a sliirng[e case for fiiirnairnclial of f iiciienciies, airnd tlheu°e are seveu°al
requiiremeirmts that must be met to successf ally caw:u°tlif`y a class. Analysis oil clans ceu•tiill1catiion !is Ibeyoirnd tllmaa: scope of this au°tiic[e but suffiicaw: it to .say that/
the Court: of Appeals liirn lohnson upheld fits use liirn the chal[eirnge to the eirmf orceirneirmt Ipractlices of the City of Grairmts (Pass,
The ruling in Martin v. Cityof Boise is not limited to criminal citations.
f'he Martin case involved the lissuairnce of criirmnliirnal clitaboirns for vliolabi ng the City of I13oilses airmtii camlpiiirng ordiiirnairnces. The City of 0u°airmts (Pass argued 0hat
its eirmf orceirneirmt Ipractices did not vliofate the Il::::iigh h Airneirndirneirmt (because the lissuairnce of civil[ clitaboirns !is not "°Ipuirnlislhirneirmt" The lohnson coup
dlisagu°eed, sliirnce the civil[ ciitaboirns could eveirmtually lead to criirmnliirnal Ipuirniis[mmeirmt:
The anti -camping ordinances prohibit Plaintiffs from engaging in activity they cannot avoid. The civil citations issued for behavior Plaintiffs cannot
avoid are then followed by a civil park exclusion order and, eventually, prosecutions for criminal trespass. Imposing a few extra steps before
criminalizing the very acts Martin explicitly says cannot be criminalized does not cure the anti -camping ordinances Eighth Amendment infirmity.
The court: clau°iif lied that "our decision does not address a regiime of Ipure[y civil[ liinf racdoirns, nor does lit Iprolhlill:aiit the City f roirmn atteimlpt i ng otllmeo° so[utlioirns
to the home[essirness [issue:"'
Ordinances must allow homeless individuals to take "the most rudimentary precautions' against the elements.
fm�,
„ lohnson court was not impressed wlitllm the ciit 's au°gumeirmt that ameirndiiirng the air d camlpiiirng ordliirnairnces to allow liirndlivlidualls exlperlieirnciiirng
, not
home[essirness to steep in (parks coirnpllied wlitllm the Martin case. Although s[eelpiiirng was techi niical[y allowed,'0he airneirnded ou°dliirnairnce coirmdi nued to
prolhlill:aiit the use of "°Ilaeddliirng, Meelpiing Ibagl[.S.11, or other irnateirlial used for Ibeddliirng purposes" " INotiing that "Grairmts (Bass !is cold liirn the Wi nteu°," the court: ruled
that, "'Ohe City cairnirnot eirmf ou°ce fits air d caimlpliirng ordliirnairnces to the exteirmt they Iprohlilblit "the imost rudliirmneirmtau°y Icrecaudoirns a homeless Ipeu°soirn imight take
agaiiirnst the eleirneirmts°"
The court: was caret u[ to note that fits ruUi ng did not inecessairlily extend Ibeyoirnd the imost rudliirmneirmtau°y Icrecaudoirns:
Our holding that the City's interpretation of the anti -camping ordinances is counter to Martin is not to be interpreted to hold that the anti -
camping ordinances were properly enjoined in their entirety. Beyond prohibiting bedding, the ordinances also prohibit the use of stoves or fires,
as well as the erection of any structures. The record has not established the fire, stove, and structure prohibitions deprive homeless persons of
sleep or "the most rudimentary precautions' against the elements. Moreover, the record does not explain the City's interest in these
prohibitions. Consistent with Martin, these prohibitions may or may not be permissible.
Con-'.-_:__
Badlolop
https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/october-2022/new-9th-circuit-ruling-on-anti-camping-ordinances#::text=The court in Martin ruled,sleeping ... 2/3
1/23/23, 7:46 PM MRSC - New Ninth Circuit Ruling Addresses Anti -Camping Ordinances
TheJohnson court Irnoted that nts decision, like Martin, !is Inairrow:' f�lhe Graints Pass oirdlinainces weire slirniftair to the Bolse oirdlinainces ulrn that they
jpirohiltited sl[eeloing and cairnjpiing lilrn jpubllic jpl[aces oin a cityWde Ibaslis, IN6ther Johnson oir Marl.in crevent a uuidsdctoin firorn crohdbiting lying or sieejpiing
outside at Ipartiieuular birines oir lilrn Ipalrltlioluulalr locations, dbstructling the Iriight of way, or erecting ceirtallin sitructuires.
Johnson !is ill kei[y the first IIIrn a seirlies of 1postMarlin Ninth Circuit cases IIn which the coinstitUtionahty of einfoirceiment of aint! cairnlipling oirdlinainces !is
tested. IIt wiH take tirne to define the scolpe of rnuinl61oai[ irtgulatoiry autho16ty lilrn this develojpiing area of Law.
is a privale nonprofil organizalion serving, fare algoner nryients in Washh�ton Slat e., Eligible governrywni agencjes in Washqg ton Slale n'iay use
OUr free, one on one Ask MRS Cservice io a, et a riswers, to lc.:,gj 1 policy, or financia I que..,s tic.) ns.
About Oskar Rey
Oskar IRey Ihas Ipractiiceaf Irxnu.rrnilclijpal law slince l995 and served as Assistant City Attorney for the City of Kirkilaind firoirn
2005 to 20W where Ihe vvoirlked oin a wide Iralrnf e of irnuinidpal[ tolpics, lilrnalaudilrnf lain.-9 use, Ipuulkullia Irecoirds, and Ipuulkullia
works. Oskar !is a life loing Iresiidelrnt of Washington and giradUated firoini the University of Washington School[ of 1Iaw iilrn
1992.
Vllll::.:.W Ali 1I... IPOSFS IltYOSIKAIR R1E.:.Y
S ,::I
iaini11 Ae II.)i�:)ii:uinneinls
Stay Informed
Suloscirdbe to E.: News1letteirs
MIRSC linsght E.11[og
Retatled Services
o� wvvvv,.iniirsu:::irosteirs,.oirg
F0110W Ll&�
��) 2023 MUnialpal[ Reaearch and Seir4iicesCeruLerof'VdaslhiirigLoiri (MRSQ,A11nighUireGeirved, Privacy & l.eirrm
https:llmrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/october-2022/new-9th-circuit-ruling-on-anti-camping-ordinances#:-:text=The court in Martin ruled,sleeping ... 3/3