San Antonio Express-News
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allows cities to criminalize sleeping in public, even in the absence of shelters.
It’s a decision that legal experts and advocates for homeless people say will likely fuel the aggressive clearing of homeless camps.
We share these concerns.
The court’s 6-3 decision along ideological lines on June 28 to uphold a camping ban in Grants Pass, Oregon, has broad national implications.
It is an endorsement of similar bans in other cities, and it likely will inspire communities across the country to embrace quick actions that “clean up” homelessness but fall far short of addressing a complex human issue.
We get it. Clearing encampments and banning sleeping in public could address the immediate visuals of homelessness in communities.
We also understand the challenges the homeless community poses to business owners, residents and visitors. Encampments are unsightly and dangerous. The homeless population can be challenging to serve.
But out of sight does not necessarily mean out of mind. In fact, such an aggressive approach could make things worse if people lose essential documents when encampments are cleared, move to encampments that are less accessible or hidden, or languish in jails.
Here, we are thinking of Jack Ule, a homeless man with severe mental illness. Ule was arrested at University Hospital for criminal trespass in 2019 and died in jail.
Some background: To address surging homelessness, Grants Pass began issuing $295 fines to people sleeping outside, even when they had no options for sleeping indoors. Obviously, someone sleeping outside could not afford such a fine.
An appeals court nixed the fine, saying it violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. A majority of Supreme Court justices disagreed in Johnson vs. Grants Pass.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority: “The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.”
Writing in dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor gave voice to the humanity devoid in the majority opinion.
“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” she wrote. “For some people, sleeping outside is their only option. The City of Grants Pass jails and fines those people for sleeping anywhere in public at any time, including in their cars, if they use as little as a blanket to keep warm or a rolled-up shirt as a pillow. For people with no access to shelter, that punishes them for being homeless.”
In Texas, where more than 27,000 people were homeless last year, as the Texas Tribune reported, the decision likely ensures the status quo. Camping bans in San Antonio, Austin and Houston will continue, and so, too, will a state ban on camping from 2021.
And, of course, laws exist to arrest people for loitering, trespassing, littering and drug use. But those laws are about as meaningful as a $295 fine if they don’t address root causes.
Here in Texas, Houston has received national recognition for addressing homelessness by placing people in housing and then delivering services.
In San Antonio, where homelessness is a pressing concern, the city has cleared hundreds of camps. It’s also on track to meet a 2020 goal of creating 1,000 permanent supportive housing units in the next 10 years. Additionally, more than 2,200 homeless people moved to shelter or housing between October 2023 and March 31.
Let’s be clear: We want homeless encampments addressed. Don’t confuse our reaction to this particular ruling as favoring prolonged encampments or being remotely OK with the many health and safety challenges those encampments create.
But we believe ending homelessness begins with placing people in housing, not criminalizing them for sleeping in public when they have no other place to go. The question isn’t whether to cite a person in such a situation, but rather how best to address why so many people are unhoused.
