Until now, cities across the western United States were required to have shelter available before clearing a homeless encampment or forcing an unhoused person to stop sleeping in a public space. That’s no longer the case.
In a 6-to-3 vote on June 28, the Supreme Court ruled that a set of laws passed by the City of Grants Pass, Oregon — which penalize sleeping and camping in public places, including sidewalks, streets and city parks — do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
The decision could have big implications for Santa Cruz, a city that has struggled to address homelessness. As of last year, there were 1,028 people experiencing homelessness in Santa Cruz. Of those, 749 were unsheltered.
Various tent encampments have popped up over the years, but the city has only been able to clear them after offering shelter to each encampment resident.
Now, as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Santa Cruz could choose to clear encampments regardless of how much shelter is available. Tom Stagg, the chief initiatives officer at Housing Matters (a local nonprofit that provides support for unhoused people) is bracing for that possibility.
“The [Supreme Court] decision would definitely give some cover to cities to be able to move people or to ticket them even when there's not shelter beds available,” he said. “I hope that that's not the decision that’s made locally.”
According to the city’s homelessness response manager, it won’t be. But with the ruling having just come down, the city’s response is uncertain.
Read more about what the ruling could mean for Santa Cruz here.
