Officials Weigh in on SCOTUS Case's Local Implications 

As the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could shift the legal landscape underpinning how governments can treat homeless residents, local officials watched with mixed emotions and hopes.

Since 2018, a decision known as Martin v. Boise out of the U.S. Court of Appeals' Ninth Circuit determining that governments cannot criminalize camping in public spaces unless people are given shelter as an alternative has been the case law dictating the terms of the debate. It's been the legal precedent cities and the county have pointed to while crafting policies aimed at mitigating some of the impacts of homeless encampments, providing guard rails that have prevented some from crafting stricter ordinances.

But the case Johnson v. Grants Pass that was argued before the United States Supreme Court on April 22 could shift that landscape entirely. If the court's majority sides with the homeless residents who filed a lawsuit in 2018 challenging the small Oregon city's three ordinances that combine to criminalize sleeping in public streets, alleyways and parks while using a blanket or bedding, things will remain status quo. But if the court's majority sides with the city, the precedent would give local governments latitude to craft similar policies.

"This is a complex issue that can't have just one side," Assemblymember Jim Wood told the Journal via email, declining to take a stance in the case, which some of his colleagues have done. "Cities have to be able to protect public health and safety but we can't turn our eyes away from people who are not able to house themselves without looking at real solutions. As a former local government official, I'm concerned that cities will continue to be vulnerable to lawsuits for protecting their citizens and businesses under the current court decision, but also want to see cities prioritize solutions to build much-needed housing and identify safe shelter and support services for the people who need it."

While no local cities have taken an official stance on the case or filed briefs supporting either side, the League of California Cities — of which all local cities are members has done so in support of Grants Pass' position, as has the California State Sheriffs' and California Police Chiefs associations.

In many ways, the arguments that unfolded in the Supreme Court on April 22 mirrored local debates on how to mitigate the impacts of homelessness in Humboldt County, which is home to one of the highest per-capita populations of unsheltered people in the state. Some feel it is inhumane — cruel and unusual, as the Boise court determined — to criminalize the human necessity of sleeping if people have nowhere else to go, while others feel the threat of enforcement is the proverbial stick necessary to get people to enroll in programs, stay in shelters and access other services. But between those two polls are difficult questions, like what constitutes adequate shelter options and when outlawing camping and sleeping in certain areas becomes an outright ban.

The city of Fortuna's anti-camping ordinance, for example, seems to straddle some of those lines, though it has yet to face a court challenge. The ordinance prohibits camping throughout most of the city, though the police department's policy is to offer "education" to offenders, with citations and — potentially — criminal charges to follow for repeat offenders. There are no homeless shelters within the city, but Fortuna Police Chief Casey Day pledged pledged when the council was considering the ordinance that his department would offer those camping a ride to one nearby before enforcing the ordinance. (The city has also contributed funding to homeless services in Eureka and Arcata in the past.)

Fortuna City Manager Merritt Perry said the city is well aware of the restrictions Boise imposes and its enforcement approach is consistent with the precedent it established. He implied the approach may change if the court allows it.

"I think the city would welcome [the ability] to enforce its ordinances to protect our creek and common spaces that are being impacted by illegal camps, however this alone will not solve the root problem of homelessness, which still need to be addressed," Perry said, adding he see those root causes as "housing affordability, mental health and addiction."

Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsal said the Boise precedent has had a "profound impact on our society," to the point that "the rights of the homeless have outweighed the rights of other citizens."

"We also see the deterioration of the homeless population throughout the state, with no hope in sight," he said. "Encampments are public health nightmares. We see the proliferation of drugs and alcohol abuse in the encampments, and crime increases in the areas where the camps are located."

He continued to say he hopes the Supreme Court will overturn the Boise decision and "enable law enforcement and social services to steer [homeless] persons into programs," noting he feels many are now just "languishing in the public space, deteriorating in their addictions, mental illness and poverty."

Eureka City Manager Miles Slattery, meanwhile, said he doesn't think overturning the Boise decision would change the way the city approaches things. Noting the city's police department has only given out a "handful" of camping citations in recent years, he said the city's focus is on bolstering the "amount of programs and services to accommodate everyone" who needs them. Slattery said the Eureka Rescue Mission has never reached capacity for single men in recent years, so police could legally be issuing citations to all men camping within the city nightly.

"Technically, nobody should be sleeping on our waterfront based on our ordinance," he said.

But Slattery said he recognizes there are barriers — like the mission's policies that separate men and women, preventing couples from sleeping together, and its inability to accommodate pets — that are untenable for some people. As such, he said the city's tried to take a "compassionate" approach as it builds up services.

Regardless of what the court decides in the Grants Pass case, Slattery said the city will continue working to add 60 or so shelter beds that allow couples to cohabitate and residents to bring their pets. When that's in place, he said the city's approach to enforcement may change.

"If we have a place for you to go, you need to take advantage of that," he said.

This story was updated from a previous version to clarify aspects of Fortuna's enforcement of its ordinance.

Thadeus Greenson (he/him) is the Journal's news editor. Reach him at (707) 442-1400, extension 321, or [email protected].