Phoenix supports Grants Pass in landmark U.S. Supreme Court homelessness case. Why?
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in a case that asks whether criminalizing sleeping in public is cruel and unusual punishment, therefore unconstitutional, a case that could make a significant impact on the streets of Phoenix.
The case could make it easier for city officials to enforce an urban camping ban on city sidewalks or at local parks.
It would also provide clarity for the city, which has been straddling two legal cases related to its handling of the homeless crisis — one in which the city was told to get rid of encampments and another saying not to without shelter availability.
The high court case also stands to make life more difficult for people without housing.
The justices' decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, which is expected this July, could again allow cities to criminalize individuals who sleep in public spaces even if cities don't have adequate shelter capacity. Unhoused individuals could be jailed or penalized with fees.
Phoenix: New homeless camping ban inches closer to approval. What to know
Currently, cities operate under rulings from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In Martin v. City of Boise, the Ninth Circuit ruled it was unconstitutional to criminally cite people for sleeping in public when there's no adequate and available alternative, such as a shelter bed.
In the Grants Pass case, the Ninth Circuit upheld Martin v. City of Boise and said if there are not enough shelter beds, unhoused people can use tents, blankets and other measures for protection against the elements while sleeping.
Phoenix officials filed a legal briefing to the high court last September, saying the Grants Pass and Martin case rulings were preventing the city from addressing public health and safety concerns stemming from homeless encampments.
'Something's gotta give': Phoenix spends $15M on homelessness but may have to cut elsewhere
It was a particular issue at "The Zone," a sprawling encampment outside the city's largest homeless shelter at 12th Avenue and Madison Street. At its height, The Zone housed 1,000 individuals who camped on sidewalks in tents or tattered sheets.
A letter by attorney Justin Pierce spells out the position of Phoenix city leaders. Here are the highlights:
You don't need shelter beds to constitutionally criminalize public camping
Phoenix's legal filing says it is constitutional to pass and enforce laws that ban "public camping, sitting, lying, and sleeping," even if there are no shelter beds. The letter claims the Ninth Circuit Court rulings were wrong and overreached by unnecessarily weighing complicated factors, such as whether someone is voluntarily or involuntarily homeless, and by extending protections the constitution does not guarantee.
Adding beds: West Phoenix shelter clears final hurdle, will open this summer, despite fierce opposition
Ninth Circuit's decisions paved the way for 'The Zone'
Phoenix's letter states the Ninth Circuit's decisions created "unprecedented rights to occupy public property, obstructing municipalities' ability to address sprawling encampments that threaten health and safety."
The letter goes on, "The decisions are hard to decipher, harder to comply with, and risk inaction at the expense of public health."
Phoenix doesn't have enough shelter beds and must be able to clear sidewalks
Pierce says the city curtailed its efforts to address sprawling encampments because it lacks shelter space. But cities, Pierce writes, "must have the ability to remove tents from sidewalks" and tell people they cannot camp indefinitely "to address sprawling campgrounds."
Pierce argued that cities, including Phoenix, want case law to enable them to protect health and safety in and around homeless encampments.
Municipalities should provide shelter and social services to address individuals' "underlying issues, whether additional, mental health or other complicating factors," but also should be able to enforce public camping laws "without first establishing shelter capacity."
Homeless in the Valley: Phoenix to offer overnight heat respite this summer, but some worry of 'nuisance'
How hard do cities have to work to determine shelter availability?
Phoenix isn't sure how exactly the Ninth Circuit defines adequate and available shelter.
The letter asks: Is it a simple math formula? If the number of homeless individuals exceeds the number of shelter beds available, then the individuals are involuntarily homeless, and cities cannot enforce camping bans against them? In that case, Phoenix says it may never be able to lawfully enforce camping bans.
Or, is it about availability on the particular day someone is cited?
The letter also asks: Is Phoenix required to assess each individual's case? Certain shelters have eligibility requirements, so does the city need to ensure a person is qualified at an available shelter before enforcing a camping ban? What can the city do if individuals refuse shelter?
The Eighth Amendment is about 'modes of punishment'
Pierce writes, "The Eight Amendment was intended to address modes of punishment that are not regularly or customarily employed."
The Ninth Circuit has moved beyond that focus to whether the punishment is cruel and unusual based on if someone is voluntarily or involuntarily homeless.
But considering voluntariness has downstream consequences and prevents cities from potential bans on urinating or defecating in public, Pierce writes.
"This is far afield from mere regulation of modes of punishment," the letter says.
Cities need multiple tools to address homelesness
Pierce writes that citations can be a starting point, but that cities work to mitigate the effects with:
Cite and release options
Diversion programs with municipal prosecutors
Specialty homeless courts
Read the city's letter for yourself:
Taylor Seely covers Phoenix for The Arizona Republic / azcentral.com. Reach her at tseely@arizonarepublic.com or by phone at 480-476-6116.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Why Phoenix supports Grants Pass in landmark homelessness case
