A recent federal appellate ruling from the Ninth Circuit means San Francisco won’t be able to clear homeless encampments from city streets, unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns another case involving homeless encampments.
With the injunction still in place in Coalition on Homelessness v. City & County of San Francisco, it will be more difficult for San Francisco, or any other California city, to address the problem of homelessness, said Wayne Winegarden, senior fellow in business and economics at the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), in an email response to the Northern California Record.
“When combined with other policy changes (such as Prop 47, which defines theft under $950 as a misdemeanor), this decision enables people who are homeless due to addiction or mental health issues to remain on the streets,” Winegarden said. “It essentially traps people in a destructive cycle and makes proactive policies that can sustainably address the crisis more difficult to implement.”
Wayne Winegarden
| https://pacificresearch.org
The SCOTUS has subsequently granted review in a different Ninth Circuit case, Grants Pass v. Johnson, to determine whether clearing homeless encampments violates Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment.
The Coalition on Homelessness lawsuit states San Francisco cannot enforce local laws against sleeping on sidewalks or parks because of such protections.
After the district court ruled for the plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit upheld in a 2-1 ruling on Jan. 11. Two Biden appointees found for the plaintiffs, while Trump-appointed Judge Patrick Bumatay issued a dissent.
“But it cannot be cruel and unusual to prohibit homeless persons from sleeping, camping, and lodging wherever they want, whenever they want,” Bumatay wrote. “While they are entitled to the utmost respect and compassion, homeless persons are not immune from our laws. And San Francisco should be free to address this pressing concern without judicial interference premised on the most radical interpretation of our Constitution.”
The next day, Jan. 12, the SCOTUS announced it would review Grants Pass, which Gov. Gavin Newsom and other public officials have urged the high court to take up.
From a policy perspective, the Coalition on Homelessness injunction is having a materially negative impact on the city, its residents, and the homeless population, Winegarden said.
“The encampments, and the subsequent problems of drugs and human waste, undermine the local economy, drive out businesses, and encourage more current residents of San Francisco to become former residents of the city,” Winegarden said. “The longer the encampments remain, the larger these costs will be. Ultimately, San Francisco’s vitality is further undermined.”
“Ironically, a less vibrant city with a smaller tax base is less capable of sustainably addressing the homelessness crisis,” Winegarden said. “Thus, the city is at risk of a sustained economic decline.”
He noted that Grants Pass v. Johnson is directly related to the issue of cities’ ability to enforce no camping laws.
“Depending on the ruling and its breadth, the case could materially impact these issues,” Winegarden said. “If completely overturned, then West Coast cities will once again have the ability to enforce anti-sleeping and anti-camping laws.”
The San Francisco District Attorney’s office has asked the court to stay the Coalition on Homelessness proceedings, pending the SCOTUS ruling in Grants Pass, which is expected in the next few months.
Whether it ultimately helps the state to reach its homeless residents remains to be seen.
“California’s current approach to addressing the homelessness issue, what is referred to as Housing First, is ineffective yet still exceptionally expensive,” Winegarden said. “The state can more effectively address the homelessness problem by leveraging the many efficient private organizations that have a solid track record of helping the homeless, utilizing lower-cost solutions such as temporary housing, and focusing on innovative treatment options.”