The stakes for SF in Supreme Court homelessness case
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Homeless tents seen on Embarcadero Street in San Francisco. Photo: Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
San Francisco officials are awaiting a key U.S. Supreme Court ruling that will have implications for how cities address homelessness amid disputes over enforcement of encampment sweeps.
Why it matters: The case could reshape local governments' policies around camping and sleeping in public, and its outcome would likely inform San Francisco's ongoing legal battle with local homelessness advocates.
State of play: Grants Pass v. Johnson involves a 2018 lawsuit targeting a city code in Oregon that prohibits sleeping in public parks — even if there's no available shelter.
- People found guilty under the Grants Pass ordinance can face jail time and fines, which homeless plaintiffs argued violates the Eighth Amendment clause of "cruel and unusual punishment."
- After lower courts sided with the plaintiffs, the city appealed the ruling, arguing that the resulting injunctions limit its ability to respond to public health and safety concerns.
- San Francisco doesn't support Grants Pass' ordinance, which City Attorney David Chiu said strips basic protections, but did submit an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing the lower court ruling "overextended the Eighth Amendment."
What they're saying: The case has "left our cities without the necessary tools to strike this balance between providing compassionate shelter services ... and keeping our streets safe and accessible," Chiu told Axios.
The other side: Nisha Kashyap, an attorney with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area who's representing unhoused people in a separate lawsuit against San Francisco, told Axios a ruling in favor of Grants Pass could give cities "carte blanche" to use punitive tools.
- In the San Francisco case, advocates have accused the city of violating unhoused people's rights by seizing and destroying their property.
- "Cities will be able to push their own residents out simply because they can't afford a place to live."
Yes, but: The Supreme Court's decision is unlikely to result in a major change in San Francisco's day-to-day operations.
- Grants Pass "has to do with the concept of enforcing the law without offers of shelter," which are standard for San Francisco, street response coordination director Sam Dodge told Axios.
- Kashyap also pointed to a voter proposition approved in 2016 that requires the city to give 24-hour advance notice and offer available shelter before clearing a tent. The city must also store personal property for up to 90 days.
- The Lawyers' Committee lawsuit is more about the "yawning gap" between what the city says it's doing and what it's actually doing, she added.
The big picture: Grants Pass won't address the shortage of affordable housing and shelter beds, experts say.
- That remains the "fundamental crisis at the heart of these problems," according to Margot Kushel, director of the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative.
- "We have effective strategies to address behavioral health concerns, but they all — at the end of the day — require ... housing," Kushel told Axios via email.
What's next: The Supreme Court's ruling is expected in June.