NATIONAL STORY “The Court has now restored the ability of cities on the frontlines of this crisis to develop lasting solutions that meet the needs of the most vulnerable members of their communities, while also keeping our public spaces safe and clean,” Evangelis said. “Years from now, I hope that we will look back on today’s watershed ruling as the turning point in America’s homelessness crisis.” Ed Johnson, director of litigation at Oregon Law Center (OLC), who brought the initial suit against Grants Pass, said that the decision was disappointing, and added that the solution to the U.S. homelessness crisis does not ultimately rest with the courts. “We are disappointed that a majority of the Court has decided that our Constitution allows a city to punish its homeless residents simply for sleeping outside with a blanket to survive the cold when there is nowhere else for them to go,” he said. Johnson added that the court did not reach the Excessive Fines Clause claim or rule out the possibility that the Grants Pass ordinances violate the Due Process Clause, leaving room for future challenges. The absence of a decision on those claims will likely lead to further litigation. Helen Cruz was intermittently homeless in Grants Pass for years and continues to provide meals to people experiencing homelessness locally. She received multiple fines and won an appeal to an exclusion order in 2022. “It is appalling to me that nine people in little black dresses can have the power to hold the fate of someone’s life in their hands,” she said. “What this ruling has done is stripped any kind of hope that the homeless community here in Grants Pass had. How can you beat someone down even more?” For some, the work of addressing the root causes of homelessness and providing emergency services continues in the meantime. Cassy Leach, cofounder of Mobile Integrative Navigation Team (MINT) — a Grants Pass service provider for people living in parks — said that the MINT team is moving forward to provide humane solutions and wants to work with the city. She added that the city is committed to providing a place for people to go, but for now, people living in the parks are confused and unsure of what to do. She has noticed more people moving away from the parks toward Devil’s Slide, an area out of town where people feel relatively shielded from neighbor harassment but are siloed from services they desperately need. “It’s heavy,” she said, “and it’s not just heavy for us, but I keep thinking about my kids and what their future looks like with a nation that’s going down this path.” STATUS V. CONDUCT In a concurring opinion, Thomas opened the door for future challenges to Robinson v. California, a 1962 Supreme Court case that determined that a person cannot be punished for the involuntary status of being addicted to the use of narcotics. Robinson is frequently cited in Grants Pass v. Johnson, as the 9th Circuit Court affirmed in Martin v. Boise that “a person cannot be prosecuted for involuntary conduct if it is an unavoidable consequence of one’s status,” such as sleeping in public when they lack an alternative. Thomas’ opinion carries sharp implications and could pave the way for laws criminalizing other involuntary statuses. “Rather than let Robinson’s erroneous holding linger in the background of our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, we should dispose of it once and for all,” Thomas wrote. “In an appropriate case, the Court should certainly correct this error.” In its opinion, the court explicitly said local governments can address homelessness via policy choices, regardless of its decision. “Nothing in today’s decision prevents states, cities, and counties from going a step further and declining to criminalize public camping altogether,” the majority said in its decision. Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said that her office is reviewing the decision. She added that the intent behind ORS 195.530 was to affirm that cities choosing to regulate survival activities must develop laws that are reasonable and take into account the resources available to people experiencing homelessness. She echoed what many legal and homelessness experts say regarding what is necessary to materially resolve the crisis: “Regardless of the Court’s decision, we must do all we can to address homelessness. This includes addressing the primary driver of homelessness — our lack of affordable housing. My focus will continue to be on supporting Oregonians moving into housing and connecting them with the services they need to prevent homelessness. Kat Mahoney, executive director at Oregon nonprofit service provider Sisters of the Road, issued a statement denouncing the Supreme Court’s decision, saying that criminalizing homelessness will only make the crisis worse. “The heartbreaking reality is that because of today’s decision, we can expect to see a rise in armed police arresting and fining unhoused people and more people being traumatized and injured during police interactions,” she said. BACKGROUND The OLC filed the class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Medford on 15 October 2018 — just six weeks after the 9th Circuit issued its decision in Martin v. Boise. That decision served as the legal backdrop for the Grants Pass case and found that the U.S. Constitution blocks cities from imposing criminal penalties on people experiencing homelessness for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property if adequate alternative shelter is unavailable. Initially filed as Debra Blake v. Grants Pass, the complaint argued that a web of ordinances criminalized the existence of people experiencing homelessness in the city. Following Blake’s death in 2021, Gloria Johnson and John Logan stepped in as class representatives as the appeal made its way to the 9th Circuit Court and ultimately to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on 22 April. The question presented to the court was whether city ordinances leveling civil and criminal penalties against people experiencing involuntary homelessness — meaning that they have no other option — is cruel and unusual punishment. Despite significant initial pushback from the community, Grants Pass City Council unanimously approved a small emergency shelter and navigation center run by MINT on April 17. Still, the building’s capacity is well below what is needed to ensure that everyone has an option to sleep indoors. Grants Pass historically had no low-barrier emergency shelter consistently available for people experiencing homelessness. The only shelter for adults was the Gospel Rescue Mission — a high-barrier program that opened in 1983. The mission requires people who stay there to participate in a work program, attend daily Christian services, abstain from substances (including nicotine), and it does not allow socializing with the opposite sex except at approved events. The mission acknowledges gender and sexuality in “Biblical terms”, according to its house rules. Still, the city ordinances require homeless residents living in vehicles to move every 72 hours, and police force people living in parks to move as often as allowed by state law, which is also 72 hours in Oregon. City code bars anyone from sleeping in public spaces or using sleeping materials for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live. Police give people experiencing homelessness $295 citations for “scattering rubbish”, a loosely defined term for items that officers find near a tent. Fines for violating camping ordinances can increase to $537.60 if they are left unpaid. If a person receives two or more citations within a year for violating park rules, they can receive an exclusion order barring them from being in the park for 30 days under threat of criminal trespass. A person found guilty of criminal trespass can be punished with up to 30 days in jail and a $1,250 fine. The Medford court ruled that the city’s ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment in July 2020. On appeal, the 9th Circuit issued a permanent injunction on September 28, 2022, barring West Coast states in its jurisdiction from issuing civil and criminal penalties against involuntarily homeless residents lacking reasonable alternative shelter. In August 2023, Grants Pass petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, asking it to hear the case. Arguing that the 9th Circuit erred in its ruling, the city claimed that the Eighth Amendment sets limits on bail, fines, and punishments, but does not say what conduct governments may deem unlawful in the first place. ■ Courtesy of Street Roots / INSP.ngo Edited for length by Denver VOICE CALLING ALL VOLUNTEERS The Denver VOICE is enjoying an exciting – and busy! – summer. We need volunteers to help us represent the Denver VOICE at events and to help us run open houses at the offi ce during the First Friday Art Walks. If you’re interested in volunteering for events like this, scan the QR code above, or contact our Program Director Connie Gaitan at progam@denvervoice.org. August 2024 DENVER VOICE 9
10 Publizr Home