An Oregon city has filed one final brief amid a months-long effort to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and undo a San Francisco appeals court's decision that an unprecedented bipartisan coalition of state and local government officials, business leaders and others agree would all but result in the handover of all public property to the homeless.
On Dec. 20, the city of Grant's Pass, Oregon, filed a reply brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the high court to take up its appeal of a decision from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which it says would create a "constitutional right" for the homeless to camp on any street or in any park they wish, and leave cities and other local governments handcuffed in addressing the accompanying social problems.
The Supreme Court could decide as soon as early January whether to grant the request by Grant's Pass to hear full arguments in the case.
The case has generated a storm of interest and controversy since the Ninth Circuit delivered the ruling 2022, then refused to reconsider in July.
In the original 2022 ruling, a three-judge panel in a split 2-1 decision agreed to allow a coalition of homeless advocates to move forward with a class action lawsuit against the city of Grant's Pass, seeking to block Grant's Pass from enforcing its "anti-sleeping" and "anti-camping" ordinances. Those ordinances were generally used to prohibit the use of city parks and other public property from being used as homeless encampments, such as those that have come to dominate cities throughout California, Oregon and Washington and other states in recent years.
The ruling in the Grant's Pass case built on the Ninth Circuit's 2018 decision in Martin v City of Boise, which declared criminal penalties against homeless people for "sitting, sleeping or lying outside on public property" amounted to violations of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishments," if those homeless individuals cannot otherwise obtain shelter.
After the full Ninth Circuit denied Grant's Pass request to reconsider the ruling, the city asked the Supreme Court to step in. They argued the decision not only violates the Constitution, but would create a situation in which states in the Ninth Circuit could do nothing to address homelessness without being subject to a blizzard of long and costly lawsuits, while states in other parts of the country would not be so restrained.
In its latest filing, attorneys for Grant's Pass note that, when the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in Martin v Boise, they were told the decision was "narrow" and would still leave local governments with sufficient legal tools to address public health and safety issues created by rampant homeless encampments.
"That was an empty promise," Grant's Pass wrote.
Since Grant's Pass filed its appeal petition, they have been backed by a broad bipartisan coalition state and local governments, elected officials, business leaders and advocates, and others, urging the high court to take up the appeal and restore the ability of governments and police on the West Coast to clear encampments and retake streets, sidewalks, parks and other public spaces for the public.
In all, more than two dozen friend-of-the-court, or amici, briefs were filed in support of Grant's Pass, including from California Gov. Gavin Newsom; the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix and Anchorage; Orange County; Sacramento County; the state of Idaho and 18 other states; the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce; the Speaker of the Arizona State House of Representatives; the Goldwater Institute; and the California Business Properties Association, among others.
Grant's Pass said the vast support from across the political and societal spectrum for its appeal shows the real world harm that has come to communities throughout California and beyond since the Martin decision in 2018, and is much more than just blame shifting by elected officials seeking to deflect criticism for failing to address homelessness.
This "scapegoating theory is contradicted by the chorus of governmental amici who disagree on much but agree that this Court’s intervention is necessary. Amici hale from every State in the Ninth Circuit (plus many others), state and local governments, and both major political parties," Grant's Pass wrote.
"These amici hold different policy views on how to address the homelessness crisis ... But they all agree that the Ninth Circuit’s decisions stand in the way of solutions to this complex problem and harm the very people they were intended to help."
The Supreme Court is scheduled to discuss Grant's Pass' appeal at conference on Jan. 5.
Grant's Pass is represented before the Supreme Court by attorneys Theane D. Evangelis, Jonathan C. Bond, Bradley J. Hamburger, Samuel Eckman, Daniel R. Adler and Patrick J. Fuster, of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, of Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles; and Aaron P. Hisel, of Capitol Legal Services, of Salem, Oregon.