Update, Jan. 12, 2024: The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear the case out of Oregon, Johnson v. Grants Pass, which reaffirmed a prior federal ruling prohibiting criminalizing those sleeping on streets or sidewalks if cities do not have sufficient shelter space for them. The case forms the backbone of the federal injunction against San Francisco that was on Thursday upheld, continuing the ban on sweeps.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the Grants Pass ruling, it could free up San Francisco for more homeless enforcement.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld an injunction that limits the city’s ability to sweep homeless encampments off the streets. At the same time, it clarified that the ban against sweeps only applies to homeless people who have not turned down offers of shelter.
Under the federal injunction, imposed by the U.S. District Court Judge Donna Ryu in December 2022, the city cannot remove homeless people from the street who have no reasonable alternative shelter.
San Francisco appealed the injunction on the basis that it is overly broad and hamstrings officials’ attempts to clear encampments for health and safety reasons, asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to weigh in.
The Ninth Circuit ruled today 2-1 in favor of the ban, finding that San Francisco had “used a set of laws and practices … to criminalize sitting, sleeping, or lying in public,” and found compelling evidence that homeless people were “forced to move multiple times in a day, from multiple locations, while also being told that they could not move to various alternative locations.”
It also affirmed that, in cases where unhoused individuals are legally removed from the streets, their property must be identified and stored.
The injunction stems from a lawsuit that was filed against the city by the Coalition on Homelessness and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California in September 2022, which alleged that the city violated the constitutional rights of its homeless residents.
In 2018, a federal court held in Martin v. Boise that a municipality cannot criminalize homelessness if it does not have sufficient shelter space to offer those on the streets. A subsequent ruling, Johnson v. Grants Pass, reaffirmed that finding.
City officials, in their efforts to contest the injunction, held a rally outside the Ninth Circuit last year lambasting Judge Ryu, saying she had kneecapped their efforts to address health and safety on the streets. But the injunction does allow the city to clear encampments — for violations of the health code, for instance, and to maintain sidewalk clearance.
Still, the City Attorney’s Office noted a victory in today’s ruling, saying they “appreciate that the Ninth Circuit has confirmed again and further clarified that the injunction only applies to people who are involuntarily homeless, not those who have refused an offer of shelter,” said Jen Kwart, a spokesperson for San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu.
“Nothing about the Court’s order today requires San Francisco to modify its compassionate services-first approach to homelessness,” Kwart added.
Both Mayor London Breed and California Governor Gavin Newsom have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on Martin v. Boise, saying it makes cities’ attempts to prevent sidewalk camping impossible.
John Do, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, who represents the plaintiffs, said that the city can still address homelessness with limited sweeps. “Our clients have always advocated for increased services, shelters and affordable housing.”
“We all agree that the streets are not an appropriate place for folks to be,” said Do.
The case is currently scheduled to go to trial in October 2024.
so tired of tents, encampments, mental health emergencies outside the front doorstep of my home…USA sucks, this country is so ass backwards and unable to self govern or improve itself. Its a f#cking global embarisment and an insult to residents.
Interesting. But this ruling is actually in favor of San Francisco, as we already are the very most compassionate city in the state, if not the nation. We offer people shelter, services, and help – and the courts have now confirmed the reality that if folks do not wish to take the offer of shelter, they no longer have the right to camp out on our sidewalks. (Please note: This does *not* say that if we do not offer each homeless individual their own free one-bedroom apartment, they are allowed to camp. It does *not* say that if they are not offered shelter “they deem favorable” then they can remain – it says, “Shelter.” Period.) We offer shelter – and if they choose to reject the offer, they no longer have the right to block the sidewalks, consume illegal narcotics, and trash the neighborhoods. I consider this a win.
Hi Morticia —
The reason it took so long for your comment to be approved is because I was to ill to log onto the computer for the last 72 hours. Please, pretty please, think twice before claiming some manner of conspiracy from keeping you from writing a comment on this website.
Yours,
JE
“We offer shelter – and if they choose to reject the offer, they no longer have the right to block the sidewalks”
If that were true, the lawsuit would not exist. There would be nothing for SCOTUS to overturn.
The Breed administration is fighting the case specifically for the right to hassle people and take their stuff *without* a specific offer of shelter (of any quality).
The truth is, there is a long waitlist for shelter because Breed’s SF underinvests in actual solutions. So the city plays a game where it says, “Go over here and you can be added to the waitlist for a shelter bed.” It’s not a real offer, and if the unhoused person falls for it, as soon as they leave, their stuff is trashed. People learn that these are bullshit offers, and then Mayor Breed will tell the press that such-and-such a percent “refused shelter.” But usually there was no real shelter on offer, even a crappy one.
It should be obvious this strategy will never solve homelessness citywide, only move people from one block to another like a hot potato. But that’s what SF is leaning on the far-right dominated stolen Supreme Court to allow it to keep doing. It makes no sense. Legal or not, sweeps offer only an illusion of progress.
It’s not only “Breed’s SF” that underinvests… it’s SF at large, for ages, predating the current mayor. It’s the individuals and groups who stop affordable housing and shelters from going up in their neighborhoods, who are not the mayor, nor the previous mayor, etc.
tl;dr: West Coast tax payers will continue to foot the bill for vagrants from around the country while navigating around their tents, needles, and effluents along with our bicycles and other contents of our garages and cars.
Why have we allowed ourselves to be nudged into this judge mandated, back door approach to socialism? It doesn’t even work. We have become a national, even international laughing stock, not to mention a constant difficulty, or even danger, for those of us who actually live here. Look at the harm it has been doing to San Francisco for many years. Towns and cities across the country have had vagrancy laws for generations. I imagine San Francisco’s are still on the books. Why can’t we enforce them? I have no problem with nonprofits, charities, churches, volunteer groups, or even individuals who want to help people on the streets, but why should the ordinary citizen, the taxpayer, be forced to pay for it whether they want to or not? Aren’t there enough problems? As Willie Brown once said years ago, not everybody can live in San Francisco. I know that sounds cold and unfeeling to some, but I doubt Brown meant it that way. He was merely stating a fact. It’s reality. By denying it, what have we got now? A city that looks, in certain areas, positively Third World, or worse. More like some grim, dystopian film. There are neighborhoods I don’t even want to go into, even during the day! The encounters I have even in my own, comparatively nice neighborhood are disturbing and have me worried. San Francisco didn’t used to be like that!
“Nothing about the Court’s order today requires San Francisco to modify its compassionate services-first approach to homelessness”
The city is being disingenuous if they’re counting this as a win. The whole reason to contest the ruling was that the city felt it hamstrung their efforts to sweep encampments. If they truly were doing things by the book and offered housing to everybody affected there would be no problem, but that’s obviously not what they want to do.
If you are homeless, you don’t get to own more proper than you can carry with you. In order to own property you must have a place to put it, otherwise you cant maintain possession and it’s legally abandoned
The Nutty Ninth strikes again!
I’d put the odds of the Supreme Court reversing the Grant’s Pass decision at about 99.99%. So there will be no constitutional right to camp out on public property (duh). The case should be argued in April and a ruling should come by June. Then SF will again be free to enforce laws against such conduct – the big question is will it do so?
Don’t forget that the Supreme Court is now highly political, so common sense is that they would leverage this opportunity to suffocate and crowd every single liberal city in the US with zombies.
I just lost my car to aggressive ticketing and abuse from city And county employees that have nothing better to do than misuse their psuedo authority of a city entity to abuse and mistreat human beings while working .
This is. Not only unlawfully but imorrale . Does anyone give a damn about me and my situation No they don’t . Everything to date regarding homelessness in California on either side of the cojn is about power and big business. So good luck with this story and how good it sounds . No one gives a damn about us period . Thank you for your time in this matter.
Kelly,
Ever go camping for more than one night ?
Some of these poor people are forced to change spots several times daily.
The City should construct several Permanent camps capable of ‘housing’ a couple of thousand people each and don’t tell me we can’t do it.
I watched Walter Wong put together tents (it rained like hell) and with power and water and stages and toilets … constructed entire thing in a single day for 4,000 people for Matt Gonzalez’s Election Night.
We have the space with water and sewage hookups on Treasure Island and on the two City Golf Courses (Harding – presently controlled by Saudi Arabia’s own MSB and Lincoln – directly adjoins the huge VA Medical Center at Land’s End) …
My point is that these locations are far from Downtown San Francisco and its surrounding neighborhoods which presently take the brunt of 3 or 4 thousand people looking for a place to take their next dump.
We have plenty of large mobile toilet and shower facilities kept in storage by Breed.
24 of 36 of those units see no use at all.
Where you gonna put em when you keep moving the encampments around.
How about on Permanent Campgrounds on Treasure Island and only half (you can get by with 9 holes for an Emergency, right guys?) … half of two Golf Courses.
If Wong can accommodate 4,000 in a day the City can do it in a week.
Not a single City Leader will endorse these moves that are possible right now for Free.
Apparently they’re content moving them from one Voter/Taxpayer doorway to the next.
Anyone know if Walter Wong’s free to help ?
Dolores Park was used as a camp site after the 1906 earthquake. Why not establish acceptable camping sites throughout the city? Why shouldn’t we be using park space rather than sidewalks? There would be dedicated bathrooms and it could be low cost-versions of the navigation centers if we use donated tents. In Europe people donate tents to refugee camps. I’ve got several old tents that are going unused. Honestly it feels like it wouldn’t be any worse or more costly than shouldn’t folks from corner to corner.