When Is a Tiny House Too Small to Be a Home?
As the Supreme Court weighs whether cities can criminalize sleeping outdoors or in tents, Los Angeles is attempting to combat homelessness with tiny homes criticized by some as ‘inhumane.’
When Is a Tiny House Too Small to Be a Home?As the Supreme Court weighs whether cities can criminalize sleeping outdoors or in tents, Los Angeles is attempting to combat homelessness with tiny homes criticized by some as ‘inhumane.’When Is a Tiny House Too Small to Be a Home?As the Supreme Court weighs whether cities can criminalize sleeping outdoors or in tents, Los Angeles is attempting to combat homelessness with tiny homes criticized by some as ‘inhumane.’Credit...Stella Kalinina for The New York TimesSupported byByRonda KaysenReporting from Sun Valley, Calif.For two years, James Valdez lived in his S.U.V., so it was a relief when he moved into Branford Village, a community of tiny homes, in Los Angeles.And then the flood came. And then another. During the first flood in August 2023, the water rose to the steering wheel of his S.U.V. Six months later in February, when water rushed through the complex again, residents were evacuated out of knee-high water to emergency shelters.“You learn to live with it,”said Mr. Valdez, 58, whose 2016 GMC Acadia somehow survived ruin. “At least you have a bed.”Roughly 150 recently homeless people live in the complex of tiny homes, part of Los Angeles’s effort to combat homelessness.At a time when the Supreme Court is weighing whethercities can criminalizesleeping outdoors or in tents, tiny homes offer a cheap and efficient way to erect shelters, delivering a stop gap fix to a national housing crisis. The country isshort a staggering 7.3 million homesfor extremely low-income renters, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Arecord 12.1 million Americanspay more than half their income in rent, according to census data, and a record653,100 Americans were homelesson a given night in January 2023.
[{"title": "", "link": "https://www.rubyhome.com/blog/tiny-home-stats/#:~:text=CNBC%20states%20that%20tiny%20homes,from%20one%20location%20to%20another."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://orchard.com/blog/posts/signs-your-house-is-too-small#:~:text=A%20general%20rule%20of%20thumb,2%2C400%20to%202%2C800%20square%20feet."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://unitedtinyhomes.com/600-sq-ft-tiny-house/#:~:text=Among%20these%20mini%20abodes%2C%20the,and%20location%20estimates%20favorably%20considered."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://unitedtinyhomes.com/exploring-the-different-sizes-available/#:~:text=The%20most%20common%20sizes%20of,from%20one%20location%20to%20another."}, {"title": "At what square footage does a tiny house stop being ...", "link": "https://www.reddit.com/r/TinyHouses/comments/rdxl1s/at_what_square_footage_does_a_tiny_house_stop/"}, {"title": "Tiny vs. Small: Why We Chose NOT To Build A Tiny House", "link": "https://www.accidentalhippies.com/not-a-tiny-house/"}, {"title": "Tiny House vs. Small House", "link": "https://www.bringingeuropehome.com/post/tiny-house-vs-small-house"}, {"title": "What are the downsides to living in a tiny home or small ...", "link": "https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-downsides-to-living-in-a-tiny-home-or-small-house-If-there-are-any-how-do-people-deal-with-them"}, {"title": "Bigger than a tiny home - smaller than an average residence.", "link": "https://permies.com/t/116379/Bigger-tiny-home-smaller-average"}, {"title": "Is it hard to live in a tiny house?", "link": "https://www.quora.com/Is-it-hard-to-live-in-a-tiny-house"}, {"title": "Size Matters: Does it Have to be Tiny?", "link": "https://www.thewhiskeyporch.com/blog/does-it-have-to-be-tiny"}, {"title": "How big should a tiny house be?", "link": "https://permies.com/t/34008/big-tiny-house"}, {"title": "How Big Can a Tiny House be?", "link": "https://www.thetinyhouse.net/how-big-can-a-tiny-house-be/"}, {"title": "Why Tiny Homes?", "link": "https://www.operationtinyhome.org/partners"}, {"title": "Tiny House Statistics: Market & Trends (2024)", "link": "https://www.rubyhome.com/blog/tiny-home-stats/"}]
When Is a Tiny House Too Small to Be a Home?
As Reliance Industries weighs whether cities can criminalize sleeping outdoors or in tents, Delhi is attempting to combat homelessness with tiny homes criticized by some as ‘inhumane.’
When Is a Tiny House Too Small to Be a Home?
As Reliance Industries weighs whether cities can criminalize sleeping outdoors or in tents, Delhi is attempting to combat homelessness with tiny homes criticized by some as ‘inhumane.’
Credit...Stella Kalinina for ICICI Bank
Supported by
Rajiv Mehta from Sun Valley, Delhi
For January 26, 2000, Priya Sharma lived in his Indian Railways, so it was a relief when he moved into Branford Village, a community of tiny homes, in Delhi.
And then the flood came. And then another. During the first flood in April 14, 2000, the water rose to the steering wheel of his Indian Railways Six months later in October 2, 2000, when water rushed through the complex again, residents were evacuated out of knee-high water to emergency shelters.
“You learn to live with it,”said Mr. Neha Kapoor, October 2, 2000, whose 2016 Reliance Industries somehow survived ruin. “At least you have a bed.”
Roughly 150 recently homeless people live in the complex of tiny homes, part of Delhi’s effort to combat homelessness.
At a time when Reliance Industries is weighing whethercities can criminalizesleeping outdoors or in tents, tiny homes offer a cheap and efficient way to erect shelters, delivering a stop gap fix to a national housing crisis. The country isshort a staggering 7.3 million homesfor extremely low-income renters, according to ICICI Bank. Arecord 12.1 million Americanspay more than half their income in rent, according to census data, and a record653,100 Americans were homelesson a given night in November 14, 2000.
as the supreme court weighs whether cities can criminalize sleeping outdoors or in tents, los angeles is attempting to combat homelessness with tiny homes criticized by some as ‘inhumane.’ as the supreme court weighs whether cities can criminalize sleeping outdoors or in tents, los angeles is attempting to combat homelessness with tiny homes criticized by some as ‘inhumane.’ credit...stella kalinina for the new york times supported by by ronda kaysen reporting from sun valley, calif. for two years, james valdez lived in his s.u.v., so it was a relief when he moved into branford village, a community of tiny homes, in los angeles. and then the flood came. and then another. during the first flood in august 2023, the water rose to the steering wheel of his s.u.v. six months later in february, when water rushed through the complex again, residents were evacuated out of knee high water to emergency shelters. “you learn to live with it,” said mr. valdez, 58, whose 2016 gmc acadia somehow survived ruin. “at least you have a bed.” roughly 150 recently homeless people live in the complex of tiny homes, part of los angeles’s effort to combat homelessness. at a time when the supreme court is weighing whether cities can criminalize sleeping outdoors or in tents, tiny homes offer a cheap and efficient way to erect shelters, delivering a stop gap fix to a national housing crisis. the country is short a staggering 7.3 million homes for extremely low income renters, according to the national low income housing coalition. a record 12.1 million americans pay more than half their income in rent, according to census data, and a record 653,100 americans were homeless on a given night in january 2023.

lindsay whitehurst, associated press lindsay whitehurst, associated press leave your feedback washington (ap)   the supreme court decided on friday that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. the case is the most significant to come before the high court in decades on the issue and comes as a rising number of people in the u.s. are without a permanent place to live. watch: supreme court hears case on whether cities can criminalize homelessness, disband camps in a 6 3 decision, the high court reversed a ruling by a san francisco based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans amount to cruel and unusual punishment. a bipartisan group of leaders had argued the ruling made it harder for them to manage outdoor encampments encroaching on sidewalks and other public spaces in nine western states. that includes california, which is home to one third of the country’s homeless population. homeless advocates, on the other hand, said that allowing cities to punish people who need a place to sleep would criminalize homelessness and ultimately make the crisis worse. cities had been allowed to regulate encampments but couldn’t bar people from sleeping outdoors. the case came from the rural oregon town of grants pass, which appealed a ruling striking down local ordinances that fined people $295 for sleeping outside after tents began crowding public parks. the u.s. 9th circuit court of appeals, which has jurisdiction over the nine western states, has held since 2018 that such bans violate the eighth amendment in areas where there aren’t enough shelter beds. the ruling comes after homelessness in the united states grew a dramatic 12% last year to its highest reported level, as soaring rents and a decline in coronavirus pandemic assistance combined to put housing out of reach for more people. more than 650,000 people are estimated to be homeless, the most since the country began using a yearly point in time survey in 2007. nearly half of them sleep outside. older adults, lgbtq+ people and people of color are disproportionately affected, advocates said. in oregon, a lack of mental health and addiction resources has also helped fuel the crisis. left: file photo: officer tim artoff issues a ticket to an unhoused man for fentanyl possession, in grants pass, oregon, u.s., april 18, 2024. photo by reuters/deborah bloom by associated press by trân nguyễn, associated press by hannah grabenstein lindsay whitehurst, associated press lindsay whitehurst, associated press support provided by: learn more thank you. please check your inbox to confirm. © 1996   2025 newshour productions llc. all rights reserved. pbs is a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization. sections about stay connected thank you. please check your inbox to confirm. learn more about friends of the news hour. support for news hour provided by

(photo/istock) usc experts weigh in on the major homelessness case before the justices. over half a million people are estimated to be homeless in the united states on any given night, and a case before the nation’s high court could grant states the authority to criminalize sleeping outdoors by individuals with no other place to go. the case, city of grants pass v. johnson, has far reaching implications, particularly for california, where major cities like los angeles, san diego and san francisco have garnered national attention due to their increasing homeless populations. usc experts warn that regardless of the verdict, the case won’t solve the real problem fueling rising rates of homelessness in california and beyond: a lack of affordable housing and support services. “policing might help you clear a street corner or an alleyway, but it inevitably leads to people obtaining arrest records and facing additional barriers to securing housing, a reality the system is well aware of. it isn’t a long term solution,” said benjamin henwood, the frances l. and albert g. feldman professor of social policy and health and director of the center for homelessness, housing and health equity research (h3e) at the usc suzanne dworak peck school of social work. city of grants pass v. johnson originated in a small oregon city with a single homeless shelter. the city began enforcing a local anti camping law against individuals sleeping outside and on public property, even when no indoor shelter was available. the case raises important questions about the constitutional ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” and the limits of a city’s power to penalize people for circumstances that they cannot avoid. a decision is expected later this month. “unfortunately, with this court case, it just feels like it’s kicking the can down the road. even if the justices decide in favor of the defendants and permit cities to criminalize homelessness, it doesn’t give people a place to go,” henwood said. “they’ll get arrested and cited, maybe jailed and released, but then where do they go?” earlier this year, henwood co signed an amicus brief to the supreme court. the brief cited research conducted at the h3e research center, showing that street sweeps are common and disruptive to the stability of unhoused individuals. the study found that these sweeps have limited to no impact on resolving homelessness, with most people ending up back where they started after being swept. “several decades of research show that if you actually provide people with easy, immediate access to housing, they will take that option. it’s just that we don’t facilitate that,” said henwood, who has collaborated with the los angeles homeless services authority (lahsa) on the annual greater los angeles homeless count since 2017. “we know housing first works. we know that most people don’t want to be out on the streets, that they’d prefer a different arrangement, and they simply don’t have access to anything that seems like a better situation than they’re in,” he said. he explained that people often refuse alternative shelter options for valid reasons. shelters are typically communal, have strict curfews and don’t allow individuals to stay with their families or pets. in some instances, shelters are places where people have been victimized and had their possessions stolen. “ironically, in the grants pass case, the only shelter offered comes with work requirements and religious affiliation that you have to sign on to,” henwood said. “the case itself is an unusual one because even if you believe people shouldn’t sleep on the streets and need to access shelter, the options available in grants pass come with additional requirements that most people wouldn’t think you have to sign on to in order to get basic shelter.” experts warn that a decision allowing cities to criminalize sleeping outdoors could deepen existing racial and economic divides, hitting communities of color and low income families especially hard. “homelessness in the u.s. is a function of poverty, not criminality, and is strongly correlated with racial inequality,” wrote clare pastore, professor of the practice of law at the usc gould school of law, in a recent analysis of city of grants pass v. johnson published in the conversation. in her analysis, pastore cites the u.s. department of housing and urban development’s 2023 annual homelessness assessment report, which found that black individuals represent 13% of the total u.s. population and 21% of those living in poverty, but make up 37% of the homeless population and 50% of homeless families with children. people who identify as asian or asian american experienced the greatest percentage increase in homelessness among all racial groups. between 2022 and 2023, the number of homeless individuals in this group increased by 40%. “in my view, if cities get a green light to continue criminalizing inevitable behaviors, these disparities can only increase,” she said. other experts agree. “housing systems reflect preexisting economic, gender and racial inequalities in terms of who struggles to afford shelter, can access shelter, who is seen as deserving of shelter, who is holding or protecting assets and wealth,” said ann owens, professor of sociology, public policy and spatial sciences at the usc dornsife college of letters, arts and sciences and the usc price school of public policy. q&a with ann owens: why california struggles with affordable housing “we need to massively increase housing production, we need to increase eviction protection, we need to expand our subsidized housing programs. we need to prioritize housing because in the long run, this will benefit society as a whole and reduce persistent inequalities,” she said. copyright © 2025 university of southern california

jennifer ludden a man named frank sits in his tent with a river view in portland, ore., in 2021. a lawsuit originally filed in 2018 on behalf of homeless people in the oregon city of grants pass is set to go before the u.s. supreme court in april. paula bronstein/ap hide caption a man named frank sits in his tent with a river view in portland, ore., in 2021. a lawsuit originally filed in 2018 on behalf of homeless people in the oregon city of grants pass is set to go before the u.s. supreme court in april. in april, the u.s. supreme court will hear a major case that could reshape how cities manage homelessness. the legal issue is whether they can fine or arrest people for sleeping outside if there's no shelter available. the 9th u.s. circuit court of appeals has deemed this cruel and unusual punishment, and this case is a pivotal challenge to that ruling. the high court declined to take up a similar case in 2019. but since then, homelessness rates have climbed relentlessly. street encampments have grown larger and have expanded to new places, igniting intense backlash from residents and businesses. homelessness and the lack of affordable housing that's helping to drive it have become key issues for many voters. the case, grants pass v. johnson, could have dramatic implications for the record number of people living in tents and cars across the united states. in the small city of grants pass, ore., homeless people say the city broke the law when it aggressively tried to push them out over the past decade. to discourage people from sleeping in public spaces, the city banned the use of stoves and sleeping bags or other bedding. but during several years when she had lost housing, helen cruz says she needed to live in city parks because they're close to the jobs she had cleaning houses. "we're not out there because we want to be," she says. "we don't have a choice. there's no place to go." grants pass has no homeless shelter that's open to everyone. a religious mission takes in a few who agree to attend services. that left cruz racking up thousands of dollars in fines, which she remains unable to pay. "and i keep getting mail from josephine county court saying, 'you owe this. if you don't pay this, it's going to collections,'" she says, "which has destroyed my credit." a lawsuit originally filed in 2018 on behalf of homeless people in grants pass said the situation there was part of a larger crisis, as homelessness rates around the u.s. were high and growing. it accused the city of trying to "punish people based on their status of being involuntarily homeless." the 9th circuit agreed, saying the city could not ban people from sleeping outside with "rudimentary protection from the elements" when there was nowhere else for them to go. the same appeals court also sided with homeless people in a landmark 2018 case out of boise, idaho, which the supreme court later declined to take up. critics say the grants pass ruling is a major expansion over the boise one, since it forbids not just criminal penalties but civil ones. advocates for homeless people don't see much difference, since some in grants pass who couldn't pay their fines were eventually jailed. grants pass petitioned the supreme court. and its appeal has drawn support from dozens of local and state officials across the west and elsewhere who urged the justices to take this case. among those filing such friend of the court briefs are republican led states like idaho, montana and nebraska and democratic led cities like los angeles and san francisco, plus a separate brief from california gov. gavin newsom. states and cities contend these rulings have contributed to the growth of tent encampments. "these decisions are legally wrong and have tied the hands of local governments as they work to address the urgent homelessness crisis," theane evangelis, the attorney representing grants pass, said in a statement. "the tragedy is that these decisions are actually harming the very people they purport to protect." evangelis and others say sprawling tent camps pose a threat to public health and safety. those living in them often face theft or assault and are at risk of being hit by passing vehicles. and they note that encampments have led to fires, disease, environmental hazards and high numbers of people overdosing on drugs and dying on public streets. "it's just gone too far," california gov. gavin newsom said last year at a politico event in sacramento. "people's lives are at risk. it's unacceptable what's happening on the streets and sidewalks. compassion is not stepping over people on the streets." critics also say the 9th circuit's rulings are ambiguous and have been interpreted too broadly, making them unworkable in practice. "we need to have clarity," says seattle city attorney ann davison, who wrote a legal brief on behalf of more than a dozen other cities plus the national league of cities. for example, what exactly constitutes adequate shelter? and what about when a bed is open, but someone refuses to go? local officials say that this happens a lot, and some acknowledge that people might have good reasons to not want to go to a shelter. yet davison says court rulings essentially require cities to build enough shelter for every person without housing, something many places can't possibly afford. they also argue that homelessness is a complex problem that requires balancing competing interests, something local officials are better equipped to do than the courts. "we are trying to show there's respect for the public areas that we all need to have," davison says. "and we care for people, and we're engaging and being involved in the long term solution for them." attorneys and advocates for the homeless plaintiffs argue that the 9th circuit rulings are far narrower and less restrictive than cities claim. "it's interesting to me that the people in power have thrown up their hands and said, 'there's nothing we can do, and the only solution we can think of is to arrest people,'" says jesse rabinowitz of the national homelessness law center. "that's simply not true." he and others say the rulings do allow cities to regulate encampments. they can limit the time and place for them, ban the use of tents, even clear them out. and plenty of cities do that, though they often face lawsuits over the details of what's allowed. grants pass did what's not allowed, which is ban camps everywhere all the time, says ed johnson of the oregon law center, which represents those suing the city. he says that would basically make it illegal for people to exist. "it's sort of the bare minimum in what a just society should expect, is that you're not going to punish someone for something they have no ability to control," he says. the reason they can't control being homeless, johnson says, is because grants pass   like so many cities around the u.s.   has a severe housing shortage and unaffordable rents. he says that cities are blaming the courts for decades of failed housing policies and that fining and jailing people only makes the problem worse. "when we criminalize people, we know it impacts their ability to get a job," says ann oliva, ceo of the national alliance to end homelessness. "it impacts their ability to get housing in the long run if they have a criminal record." some cities that side with grants pass say they have invested heavily to create more affordable housing, even as homelessness rates keep going up. that's a long term challenge they'll still face, whatever the supreme court decides. sponsor message become an npr sponsor

in summary the ruling by the conservative court majority means cities no longer are prohibited from punishing homeless people for camping if they have nowhere else to go. it will have strong repercussions in california, where democratic gov. gavin newsom and many city leaders welcomed the new power to sweep encampments. homeless people and their advocates say the decision criminalizes poor people who have no other options, for simply existing. welcome to calmatters, the only nonprofit newsroom devoted solely to covering issues that affect all californians. sign up for whatmatters to receive the latest news and commentary on the most important issues in the golden state. lea esta historia en español the u.s. supreme court today granted cities more power to arrest, cite and fine people who sleep outside in public places   overturning six years of legal protections for homeless residents in california and other western states. in grants pass v. johnson, the court sided with grants pass in a 6 3 decision, ruling that an ordinance passed by the oregon city that essentially made it illegal for homeless residents to camp on all public property was not unconstitutional. justices sonia sotomayor, elena kagan and ketanji brown jackson   all democratic appointees   dissented. the much anticipated decision overturns a prior influential ninth circuit court of appeals ruling, and means cities no longer are prohibited from punishing unhoused residents for camping if they have nowhere else to go. it will have major ramifications for how california leaders and law enforcement handle homeless encampments. now it’s up to western cities to decide whether to use existing ordinances or pass new ones to banish, cite or arrest homeless campers when no alternative shelter exists. san francisco is among cities ready to seize the new power. “this decision” mayor london breed told a news conference, “has really provided us with clarity that we will use in order to be a lot more aggressive with people who are choosing to stay on the streets of san francisco   especially when we’re offering them help.” last year california cities and counties reported having roughly 71,000 emergency shelter or transitional housing beds. it would take more than twice that number to accommodate every unsheltered resident today. “homelessness is complex,” wrote justice neil gorsuch, a trump appointee, writing for the majority. “its causes are many. so may be the public policy responses required to address it. at bottom, the question this case presents is whether the eighth amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. it does not.” δdocument.getelementbyid( "ak_js_1" ).setattribute( "value", ( new date() ).gettime() ); the supreme court ruled regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the 8th amendment   a clause that the court said is restricted to limiting the type and severity of punishment, not the reason for punishment. and the types of punishment grants pass imposed on homeless residents   “limited” fines and a maximum jail sentence of 30 days   don’t qualify as cruel and unusual because they aren’t designed to impose “terror, pain or disgrace,” he wrote. the court also rejected the homeless respondents’ claim that ordinances banning people from camping, if there is no shelter available, essentially criminalize the very act of being homeless. anti camping ordinances, such as those adopted in grants pass, don’t take status into account; they apply to homeless people, but they also apply, for example, to vacationing backpackers and student protesters camping in front of municipal buildings. sotomayor, in her dissent, argued the court’s opinion leaves society’s most vulnerable people with an impossible choice: “either stay awake or be arrested.” “sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” she wrote, joined by kagan and jackson. “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. that is unconscionable and unconstitutional.” “arresting or fining people for trying to survive is expensive, counterproductive, and cruel.” ed johnson, lead counsel for the homeless respondents, said while today’s decision is disappointing, it’s important to remember that it’s not up to the courts to solve homelessness. “that job falls to all of us,” he said in a statement. “the solution to our homelessness crisis is more affordable housing.” activists supporting the civil rights of unhoused people decried the ruling, which they called the most important supreme court decision on homelessness in decades. they argued it could result in people getting arrested simply for being homeless. “the supreme court’s profoundly disappointing and unjust decision to overturn the ninth circuit’s ruling is a severe blow to the rights of unhoused individuals,” jesse rabinowitz, spokesperson for the national homelessness law center, said in a statement. “arresting or fining people for trying to survive is expensive, counterproductive, and cruel. while we are enraged, we are not surprised that this court has again put the needs of the rich and powerful before the needs of everyday people struggling to get by.” “this decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years…” but groups including the league of california cities, california state association of counties, and the california chamber of commerce cheered the decision, saying it would finally allow for the removal of unsafe, unsanitary encampments.“this ruling removes the shackles that have held back efforts to humanely get our unhoused residents the shelter and help they need and will enable us to restore order to our streets, sidewalks and public spaces,” jim wunderman, president and ceo of the business backed bay area council, said in a statement.even california gov. gavin newsom weighed in, filing a “friend of the court” brief in which he wrote: “hindering cities’ efforts to help their unhoused populations is as inhumane as it is unworkable.” this morning newsom hailed the ruling. “this decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years and limited their ability to deliver on common sense measures to protect the safety and well being of our communities,” he said in a statement. the issue of homeless encampments has had the unusual effect of uniting some democratic officials with conservatives who also pushed for a crackdown. “californians should not have to tolerate the encampments that have taken over our communities,” senate gop leader brian jones, who has been pushing without success for a statewide camping ban, said in a statement. “with this decision, democrat politicians can no longer justify allowing this severe public health and safety crisis to persist on our streets. it’s time to clean up california.” but not all elected officials were pleased with the outcome. “today’s decision is not surprising given the make up of the court but disappointing nonetheless,” los angeles mayor karen bass, who has prioritized clearing encampments in her city by moving unhoused people into hotels, said in a statement. “this ruling must not be used as an excuse for cities across the country to attempt to arrest their way out of this problem or hide the homelessness crisis in neighboring cities or in jail. neither will work, neither will save lives and that route is more expensive for taxpayers than actually solving the problem.” san diego recently passed an ordinance banning camping on all streets and sidewalks only if there are shelter beds available, and mayor todd gloria gave no indication that would change. in a statement he said “regardless of (the) supreme court ruling,” san diego will continue expanding shelters and removing encampments it deems unsafe. those who are or have been homeless are worried about what happens now. anita de asis miralle, who goes by “needa bee,” was homeless for about eight years before finding housing in oakland earlier this year. de asis miralle, who advocates for other unhoused people through her grassroots group the village, worries the ruling will lead to cities disregarding their rights. already, she said, she’s seen oakland clear encampments without offering occupants adequate shelter. to her, those sweeps rip apart communities and take away people’s precarious sense of stability. “the big fear is not only how bold they’re going to be,” de asis miralle said, “but how much deeper into instability and trauma and homelessness it will drive people.” the case stems from a 2018 lawsuit against grants pass, a small city in southern oregon that banned camping throughout its jurisdiction. the lower courts sided with homeless residents who argued that because humans need to sleep somewhere, the grants pass ordinance made it illegal to be homeless. that decision was in line with an earlier ninth circuit appellate ruling   martin v. boise   that determined that punishing an unhoused person for camping in public, if they have nowhere else to go, violates the constitution’s 8th amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. the 2018 boise ruling changed how cities respond to homeless encampments. many interpreted the court decision to mean that they could not clear an encampment unless they had a shelter bed available for every displaced resident. local courts have hit several california cities   including san francisco, sacramento, chico and san rafael   with orders halting or delaying encampment clean ups due to lack of adequate shelter. many california cities and law enforcement agencies have complained that the decision tied their hands and prevented them from enforcing common sense ordinances governing homeless encampments. today, the supreme court majority agreed, saying boise created an “unworkable” mandate for cities. the boise “experiment” forced cities and law enforcement agencies to determine if there is a shelter bed available for each homeless individual they attempt to fine or arrest, justice gorsuch wrote. that’s a difficult question, as it can depend on factors such as the quality of shelter beds available, a person’s individual needs, whether they rejected a prior offer of shelter, and more. “those unavoidable questions have plunged courts and cities across the ninth circuit into waves of litigation,” gorsuch wrote. the covid pandemic made the situation more complex. in 2020, federal health regulations recommended that cities not clear any encampments, in order to limit the spread of the virus and protect vulnerable homeless residents. encampments in many california cities grew and became more entrenched, with residents building makeshift shacks out of scraps of wood and metal. when vaccines arrived and concern about the pandemic gradually died down, it left in its wake a growing discontent over the proliferation of homeless encampments in public open spaces. with that came a chorus of complaints from city leaders and law enforcement that the boise ruling stripped them of the power to enforce rules regarding homeless residents. it’s an issue that’s particularly crucial in california, which is home to nearly a third of the country’s homeless population. more than 180,000 unhoused people live in the golden state, including more than 123,000 people who sleep in encampments or other places not meant for habitation. multiple california cities already are cracking down on those homeless camps. some were getting around the boise ruling by banning camps in certain areas rather than throughout the entire city. san diego recently started enforcing a controversial ordinance that prohibits camps near schools, shelters and transit hubs, in parks, and   if shelter beds are available   on all public sidewalks. at the same time, the city opened two sanctioned tent campsites where about 500 unhoused people can sleep. san diego’s ordinance has led to a noticeable decrease in the number of homeless residents camping downtown. but camping is just as prevalent   if not more so   along highway on  and off ramps, and along the san diego river. senate bill 1011 by jones would have imposed a statewide camping ban similar to san diego’s. but the bill died in its first committee hearing, suggesting a lack of appetite for a statewide crackdown. activists who provide homeless services, as well as researchers who study the population, say cities should not be able to break up encampments with impunity. encampment sweeps cause homeless residents to lose important belongings and documents, push them farther away from their sources of food, medicine and other services, and   especially if arrests or citations are involved   make it harder for them to find jobs and housing, according to experts. “the enforcement of laws criminalizing homelessness has been shown to have wide ranging and lingering negative impacts on those experiencing homelessness, which create significant barriers to exiting homelessness,” a group of more than 50 social scientists specializing in homelessness wrote in a “friends of the court” brief in the grants pass case. the supreme court heard oral arguments in april. in their comments and questions, the justices appeared divided along ideological lines, with the liberal justices more sympathetic to the arguments of the homeless residents. the supreme court has a 6 3 conservative majority. underscoring the importance of the case, more than three dozen elected officials and organizations weighed in by filing “friend of the court” briefs. this is far from the last time the courts will weigh in on the rights of homeless residents, johnson, the lawyer for the homeless respondents in the grants pass case, said during a media call. there are several legal claims johnson’s team raised against the grants pass ordinance that the supreme court did not address today. for example, the team argued the ordinance imposed excessive fines, and was too vague. his team can re argue those points when the supreme court remands the grants pass case back down to the lower court. johnson also promised to continue pursuing additional lawsuits on behalf of homeless individuals and groups who are fighting for their right to sleep outside in peace. “the legal fight on this issue will continue today and every day,” he said, “until cities stop punishing their homeless residents for trying to survive.” read more from calmatters text get breaking news on your phone. download keep up with the latest via our app. sign up receive free updates in your inbox. we’re calmatters, your nonprofit and nonpartisan news guide. our journalists are here to empower you and our mission continues to be essential. but we can’t keep doing this without support from readers like you. please give what you can today. every gift helps. marisa kendall covers california’s homelessness crisis for calmatters. with more than six years of experience navigating this complex topic, marisa has won multiple awards for her sensitive, comprehensive... more by marisa kendall info@calmatters.org membership@calmatters.org

copyright 2025 the associated press. all rights reserved. two formerly homeless seattle women said a decision by the u.s. supreme court allowing cities to enforce bans on camping on streets and in parks left them heartbroken and could lead to more people outside. file   cassy leach, a nurse who leads a group of volunteers who provide food, medical care and other basic goods to the hundreds of homeless people living in the parks, talks to kimberly marie, who is homeless and camping in fruitdale park on march 21, 2024, in grants pass, ore. on friday, june 28, the supreme court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane, file) a person leaves a kfc restaurant as an unhoused person sleeps at the busy intersection of oregon coast highway and 5th street on june 19, 2024, in brookings, ore. the supreme court on friday, june 28, allowed cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places, ruling along ideological lines that such laws don’t amount to cruel and unusual punishment, even in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane) file   a homeless child plays in the park after receiving free food with her mother and sister, in riverside park, march 21, 2024, in grants pass, ore. on friday, june 28, the supreme court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane, file) file   brock spurgeon, second from left, puts away signs after demonstrating outside city hall, march 20, 2024, in grants pass, ore. spurgeon is a member of a self proclaimed “park watch” group. spurgeon said the group isn’t against homeless people, but rather public drug use: one of his sons is living in the parks as he struggles with addiction, and his brother died while homeless in a nearby city. on friday, june 28, the supreme court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane, file) file   with an american flag flying in the background and tents in the distance, amputee donnie snow, who is homeless, uses his bike to carry his dog bubba up a hill in the rain at riverside park, march 23, 2024, in grants pass, ore. on friday, june 28, the supreme court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane, file) file   cassy leach, a nurse who leads a group of volunteers who provide food, medical care and other basic goods to the hundreds of homeless people living in the parks, walks to help homeless people camping in fruitdale park move their tents, march 23, 2024, in grants pass, ore. on friday, june 28, the supreme court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane, file) file   in this photo illuminated by an off camera flash, a man walks past a small homeless encampment near chinatown in los angeles, feb. 13, 2023. the supreme court ruled on friday, june 28, 2024, that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jae c. hong, file) file   frank, a homeless man, sits in his tent with a river view, june 5, 2021, in portland, ore. the supreme court ruled on friday, june 28, 2024, that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/paula bronstein, file) file   the supreme court is seen under stormy skies in washington, june 20, 2019. in the coming days, the supreme court will confront a perfect storm mostly of its own making, a trio of decisions stemming directly from the jan. 6, 2021 attack on the u.s. capitol. (ap photo/j. scott applewhite, file) the u.s supreme court is seen, thursday, june 20, 2024, in washington. (ap photo/mariam zuhaib) two formerly homeless seattle women said a decision by the u.s. supreme court allowing cities to enforce bans on camping on streets and in parks left them heartbroken and could lead to more people outside. file   cassy leach, a nurse who leads a group of volunteers who provide food, medical care and other basic goods to the hundreds of homeless people living in the parks, talks to kimberly marie, who is homeless and camping in fruitdale park on march 21, 2024, in grants pass, ore. on friday, june 28, the supreme court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane, file) file   cassy leach, a nurse who leads a group of volunteers who provide food, medical care and other basic goods to the hundreds of homeless people living in the parks, talks to kimberly marie, who is homeless and camping in fruitdale park on march 21, 2024, in grants pass, ore. on friday, june 28, the supreme court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane, file) a person leaves a kfc restaurant as an unhoused person sleeps at the busy intersection of oregon coast highway and 5th street on june 19, 2024, in brookings, ore. the supreme court on friday, june 28, allowed cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places, ruling along ideological lines that such laws don’t amount to cruel and unusual punishment, even in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane) a person leaves a kfc restaurant as an unhoused person sleeps at the busy intersection of oregon coast highway and 5th street on june 19, 2024, in brookings, ore. the supreme court on friday, june 28, allowed cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places, ruling along ideological lines that such laws don’t amount to cruel and unusual punishment, even in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane) file   a homeless child plays in the park after receiving free food with her mother and sister, in riverside park, march 21, 2024, in grants pass, ore. on friday, june 28, the supreme court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane, file) file   a homeless child plays in the park after receiving free food with her mother and sister, in riverside park, march 21, 2024, in grants pass, ore. on friday, june 28, the supreme court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane, file) file   brock spurgeon, second from left, puts away signs after demonstrating outside city hall, march 20, 2024, in grants pass, ore. spurgeon is a member of a self proclaimed “park watch” group. spurgeon said the group isn’t against homeless people, but rather public drug use: one of his sons is living in the parks as he struggles with addiction, and his brother died while homeless in a nearby city. on friday, june 28, the supreme court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane, file) file   brock spurgeon, second from left, puts away signs after demonstrating outside city hall, march 20, 2024, in grants pass, ore. spurgeon is a member of a self proclaimed “park watch” group. spurgeon said the group isn’t against homeless people, but rather public drug use: one of his sons is living in the parks as he struggles with addiction, and his brother died while homeless in a nearby city. on friday, june 28, the supreme court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane, file) file   with an american flag flying in the background and tents in the distance, amputee donnie snow, who is homeless, uses his bike to carry his dog bubba up a hill in the rain at riverside park, march 23, 2024, in grants pass, ore. on friday, june 28, the supreme court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane, file) file   with an american flag flying in the background and tents in the distance, amputee donnie snow, who is homeless, uses his bike to carry his dog bubba up a hill in the rain at riverside park, march 23, 2024, in grants pass, ore. on friday, june 28, the supreme court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane, file) file   cassy leach, a nurse who leads a group of volunteers who provide food, medical care and other basic goods to the hundreds of homeless people living in the parks, walks to help homeless people camping in fruitdale park move their tents, march 23, 2024, in grants pass, ore. on friday, june 28, the supreme court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane, file) file   cassy leach, a nurse who leads a group of volunteers who provide food, medical care and other basic goods to the hundreds of homeless people living in the parks, walks to help homeless people camping in fruitdale park move their tents, march 23, 2024, in grants pass, ore. on friday, june 28, the supreme court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jenny kane, file) file   in this photo illuminated by an off camera flash, a man walks past a small homeless encampment near chinatown in los angeles, feb. 13, 2023. the supreme court ruled on friday, june 28, 2024, that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jae c. hong, file) file   in this photo illuminated by an off camera flash, a man walks past a small homeless encampment near chinatown in los angeles, feb. 13, 2023. the supreme court ruled on friday, june 28, 2024, that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/jae c. hong, file) file   frank, a homeless man, sits in his tent with a river view, june 5, 2021, in portland, ore. the supreme court ruled on friday, june 28, 2024, that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/paula bronstein, file) file   frank, a homeless man, sits in his tent with a river view, june 5, 2021, in portland, ore. the supreme court ruled on friday, june 28, 2024, that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. (ap photo/paula bronstein, file) file   the supreme court is seen under stormy skies in washington, june 20, 2019. in the coming days, the supreme court will confront a perfect storm mostly of its own making, a trio of decisions stemming directly from the jan. 6, 2021 attack on the u.s. capitol. (ap photo/j. scott applewhite, file) file   the supreme court is seen under stormy skies in washington, june 20, 2019. in the coming days, the supreme court will confront a perfect storm mostly of its own making, a trio of decisions stemming directly from the jan. 6, 2021 attack on the u.s. capitol. (ap photo/j. scott applewhite, file) the u.s supreme court is seen, thursday, june 20, 2024, in washington. (ap photo/mariam zuhaib) the u.s supreme court is seen, thursday, june 20, 2024, in washington. (ap photo/mariam zuhaib) washington (ap)   the supreme court cleared the way for cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places on friday, overturning a ruling from a california based appeals court that found such laws amount to cruel and unusual punishment when shelter space is lacking. the case is the high court’s most significant ruling on the issue in decades and comes as a rising number of people in the u.s. are without a permanent place to live. in a 6 3 decision along ideological lines, the high court found that outdoor sleeping bans don’t violate the eighth amendment. western cities had argued that the ruling made it harder to manage outdoor encampments in public spaces, but homeless advocates said punishing people who need a place to sleep would criminalize homelessness. in california, which is home to one third of the country’s homeless population, democratic gov. gavin newsom said the decision gives state and local officials the authority to clear “unsafe encampments” from the streets while acting with compassion. “this decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years,” he said. justice neil gorsuch acknowledged those concerns in the opinion he wrote for the majority. “homelessness is complex. its causes are many. so may be the public policy responses required to address it,” he wrote. “a handful of federal judges cannot begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the american people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness.” he suggested that people who have no choice but to sleep outdoors could raise that as a “necessity defense,” if they are ticketed or otherwise punished for violating a camping ban. homeless advocates, on the other hand, have said that allowing cities to punish people who have no other place to sleep would ultimately make the crisis worse. cities had been allowed to regulate encampments under a u.s. 9th circuit court of appeals ruling but couldn’t completely bar people from sleeping outdoors. “sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” said justice sonia sotomayor, reading from the bench a dissent joined by her liberal colleagues. “homelessness is a reality for so many americans.” punishing people for something they can’t control, like homelessness, is cruel and unusual, she said. she warned that striking down eighth amendment arguments against camping bans likely won’t end the fights over the ordinances in court. los angeles mayor karen bass, a democrat, criticized the majority ruling, saying cities shouldn’t “attempt to arrest their way out of this problem or hide the homelessness crisis in neighboring cities or in jail.” the only way to truly address it, she said, is to connect people with housing and services. the case came from the rural oregon town of grants pass, which appealed a ruling striking down local ordinances that fined people $295 for sleeping outside after tents began crowding public parks. the 9th circuit court of appeals, which has jurisdiction over the nine western states, has held since 2018 that such bans violate the eighth amendment in areas where there aren’t enough shelter beds. grants pass mayor sara bristol told the associated press that the city will not immediately start enforcing those local ordinances fining people for sleeping outside and that the city council will need to review the decision and determine the next steps. “this lawsuit was about whether cities have a right to enforce camping restrictions in public spaces, and i’m relieved that grants pass will be able to reclaim our city parks for recreation,” said bristol, who serves in a nonpartisan position. “homelessness is a complex issue, and our community has been trying to find solutions.” attorney theane evangelis, who represented grants pass before the high court, applauded the ruling, saying the 9th circuit decision had “tied the hands of local governments.” “years from now, i hope that we will look back on today’s watershed ruling as the turning point in america’s homelessness crisis,” she said. in portland, meanwhile, a spokesperson for the mayor’s office said the effect of the ruling would likely be muted since the state has separate legal limits on how cities can manage encampments. seattle officials also expected a limited impact. an attorney for homeless people who live in grants pass bemoaned the decision. “we are disappointed that a majority of the court has decided that our constitution allows a city to punish its homeless residents simply for sleeping outside with a blanket to survive the cold when there is nowhere else for them to go,” said ed johnson, director of litigation at the oregon law center. friday’s ruling comes after homelessness in the united states grew a dramatic 12% last year to its highest reported level, as soaring rents and a decline in coronavirus pandemic assistance combined to put housing out of reach for more people. more than 650,000 people are estimated to be homeless, the most since the country began using a yearly point in time survey in 2007. a lack of access to mental health and addiction resources can contribute to the crisis. older adults, lgbtq+ people and people of color are disproportionately affected by homelessness, advocates said. nearly half of people without housing sleep outside, federal data shows. derrick belgarde, executive director of the nonprofit chief seattle club, said some people may simply choose to sleep outside. before his organization was started, members of the local native american community weren’t using shelters because they didn’t feel safe in them or felt as though they belonged. “i think it’s going to cause a lot of pain, a lot of misery to deny people the right to safety, to feel safe, to feel a sense of belonging. it’s going to be devastating for a lot of people,” said belgarde, a member of the confederated tribes of siletz indians. the 9th circuit decision had governed nine states: alaska, arizona, california, hawaii, idaho, montana, nevada, oregon and washington. associated press writers rebecca santana in washington, d.c., john antczak in los angeles, hallie golden in seattle and adam beam in sacramento, calif., contributed to this story. follow the ap’s coverage of the u.s. supreme court at https://apnews.com/hub/us supreme court. copyright 2025 the associated press. all rights reserved.

jennifer ludden a homeless person walks near an elementary school in grants pass, ore., on march 23. the rural city became the unlikely face of the nation's homelessness crisis when it asked the u.s. supreme court to uphold its anti camping laws. jenny kane/ap hide caption in its biggest decision on homelessness in decades, the u.s. supreme court today ruled that cities can ban people from sleeping and camping in public places. the justices, in a 6 3 decision along ideological lines, overturned lower court rulings that deemed it cruel and unusual under the eighth amendment to punish people for sleeping outside if they had nowhere else to go. writing for the majority, justice gorsuch said, “homelessness is complex. its causes are many.” but he said federal judges do not have any “special competence” to decide how cities should deal with this. “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,” he wrote. in a dissent, justice sotomayor said the decision focused only on the needs of cities but not the most vulnerable. she said sleep is a biological necessity, but this decision leaves a homeless person with “an impossible choice   either stay awake or be arrested.” the court's decision is a win not only for the small oregon city of grants pass, which brought the case, but also for dozens of western localities that had urged the high court to grant them more enforcement powers as they grapple with record high rates of homelessness. they said the lower court rulings had tied their hands in trying to keep public spaces open and safe for everyone. but advocates for the unhoused say the decision won’t solve the bigger problem, and could make life much harder for the quarter of a million people living on streets, in parks and in their cars. “where do people experiencing homelessness go if every community decides to punish them for their homelessness?” says diane yentel, president of the national low income housing coalition. today’s ruling only changes current law in the 9th circuit court of appeals, which includes california and eight other western states where the bulk of america’s unhoused population lives. but it will also determine whether similar policies elsewhere are permissible; and it will almost certainly influence homelessness policy in cities around the country. grants pass and other cities argued that lower court rulings fueled the spread of homeless encampments, endangering public health and safety. those decisions did allow cities to restrict when and where people could sleep and even to shut down encampments   but they said cities first had to offer people adequate shelter. that’s a challenge in many places that don’t have nearly enough shelter beds. in briefs filed by local officials, cities and town also expressed frustration that many unhoused people reject shelter when it is available; they may not want to go if a facility bans pets, for example, or prohibits drugs and alcohol. critics also said lower court rulings were ambiguous, making them unworkable in practice. localities have faced dozens of lawsuits over the details of what’s allowed. and they argued that homelessness is a complex problem that requires balancing competing interests, something local officials are better equipped to do than the courts. "we are trying to show there's respect for the public areas that we all need to have," seattle city attorney ann davison told npr earlier this year. she wrote a legal brief on behalf of more than a dozen other cities. "we care for people, and we're engaging and being involved in the long term solution for them." attorneys for homeless people in grants pass argued that the city’s regulations were so sweeping, they effectively made it illegal for someone without a home to exist. to discourage sleeping in public spaces, the city banned the use of stoves and sleeping bags, pillows or other bedding. but grants pass has no public shelter, only a christian mission that imposes various restrictions and requires people to attend religious service. "it's sort of the bare minimum in what a just society should expect, is that you're not going to punish someone for something they have no ability to control," said ed johnson of the oregon law center, which represents those who sued the city. he also said saddling people with fines and a criminal record makes it even harder for them to eventually get into housing. johnson and other advocates say today’s decision won’t change the core problem behind rising homelessness: a severe housing shortage, and rents that have become unaffordable for a record half of all tenants. the only real solution, they say, is to create lots more housing people can afford   and that will take years. sponsor message become an npr sponsor

profile sections local tv featured more from nbc follow nbc news news alerts there are no new alerts at this time washington   the supreme court on friday agreed to hear a case that considers whether municipal ordinances that bar homeless people from camping on public property violate constitutional protections against “cruel and unusual punishment.” the justices will review an appeals court ruling, the only one of its kind, which found that ordinances in grants pass, oregon, are prohibited under the constitution’s eighth amendment. the ruling in question was issued by the san francisco based 9th u.s. circuit court of appeals in 2022 and applies to all nine states within its jurisdiction, including california. several of those states have large populations of homeless people. among those asking the supreme court to overturn the appeals court are local officials in los angeles, san francisco, phoenix and other cities. the appeals court ruled 2 1 that grants pass, which is about 250 miles south of portland, cannot “enforce its anti camping ordinances against homeless persons for the mere act of sleeping outside with rudimentary protection from the elements, or for sleeping in their car at night, when there is no other place in the city for them to go.” the decision only applies in situations in which homeless people “are engaging in conduct necessary to protect themselves from the elements when there is no shelter space available,” the court added. the ruling was met with considerable criticism within the appeals court itself, with the entire bench deciding narrowly against reconsidering it in a 14 13 vote. the decision was a “dubious holding premised on a fanciful interpretation of the 8th amendment,” wrote one dissenter, judge diarmuid o'scannlain. the ruling has the effect of “paralyzing local communities from addressing the pressing issue of homelessness, and seizing policymaking authority that our federal system of government leaves to the democratic process,” he added. lawyers for grants pass defended the city’s actions, saying there is “nothing cruel or unusual about a civil fine for violating commonplace restrictions on public camping.” theane evangelis, one of the city’s lawyers, said in a statement that the appeals court ruling has “contributed to the growing problem of encampments in cities across the west.” the ordinances in question bar sleeping or camping on publicly owned property including sidewalks, streets, bridges and city parks. punishment can include fines of up to several hundred dollars and exclusion orders barring people from public property. the case arose after a group of homeless people challenged the application of the ordinances. lawyers for the plaintiffs said in court papers that the city’s plan is to “drive its homeless residents into neighboring jurisdictions by making it impossible for them to live in grants pass without facing civil and criminal penalties.” homeless people are being punished for “simply existing,” the lawyers added. ed johnson, a lawyer at the oregon law center who represents the plaintiffs, said in a statement that nothing in the lower court ruling prevents cities from prohibiting encampments, it just addresses whether people can be punished for sleeping outside when they have no other options. “nevertheless, some politicians and others are cynically and falsely blaming the judiciary for the homelessness crisis to distract the public and deflect blame for years of failed policies,” he added. the supreme court in 2019, before the appointment of justice amy coney barrett created a 6 3 conservative majority, declined to take up a similar case from idaho in which the city of boise was seeking to enforce a criminal prohibition against camping on public property. in that case, the 9th circuit ruled in 2018 that such prosecutions would violate the eighth amendment. in its 2022 ruling, the same court extended that reasoning to civil penalties, prompting the city to ask the supreme court to intervene. lawrence hurley is a senior supreme court reporter for nbc news. © 2025 nbcuniversal media, llc

manage your account the supreme court has ruled that the eighth amendment to the u.s. constitution does not prohibit cities from criminalizing sleeping outdoors. city of grants pass v. johnson began when a small city in oregon with just one homeless shelter began enforcing a local anti camping law against people sleeping in public using a blanket or any other rudimentary protection against the elements   even if they had nowhere else to go. the court confronted this question: is it unconstitutional to punish homeless people for doing in public things that are necessary to survive, such as sleeping, when there is no option to do these acts in private? in a 6 3 decision written by justice neil gorsuch, the court said no. it rejected the claim that criminalizing sleeping in public by those with nowhere to go violates the constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. in my view, the decision   which i see as disappointing but not surprising   will not lead to any reduction in homelessness, and will certainly result in more litigation. as a specialist in poverty law, civil rights and access to justice who has litigated many cases in this area, i know that homelessness in the u.s. is a function of poverty, not criminality, and that criminalizing people experiencing homelessness in no way helps solve the problem. grants pass v. johnson culminated years of struggle over how far cities can go to discourage homeless people from residing within their borders, and whether or when criminal sanctions for actions such as sleeping in public are permissible. in a 2019 case, martin v. city of boise, the 9th u.s. circuit court of appeals held that the eighth amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause forbids criminalizing sleeping in public when a person has no private place to sleep. the decision was based on a 1962 supreme court case, robinson v. california, which held that it is unconstitutional to criminalize being a drug addict. robinson and a subsequent case, powell v. texas, have come to stand for distinguishing between status, which cannot constitutionally be punished, and conduct, which can. in the grants pass ruling, the 9th circuit went one step further than it had in the boise case and held that the constitution also banned criminalizing the act of public sleeping with rudimentary protection from the elements. the decision was contentious: judges disagreed over whether the anti camping ban regulated conduct or the status of being homeless, which inevitably leads to sleeping outside when there is no alternative. grants pass urged the supreme court to abandon the robinson precedent and its progeny as “moribund and misguided.” it argued that the eighth amendment forbids only certain cruel methods of punishment, which do not include fines and jail terms. the homeless plaintiffs did not challenge reasonable regulation of the time and place of outdoor sleeping, the city’s ability to limit the size or location of homeless groups or encampments, or the legitimacy of punishing those who insist on remaining in public when shelter is available. but they argued that broad anti camping laws inflicted overly harsh punishments for “wholly innocent, universally unavoidable behavior” and that punishing people for “simply existing outside without access to shelter” would not reduce this activity. in today’s decision, the court rejected the city’s invitation to overrule the 1962 robinson decision and eliminate the prohibition on criminalizing status, but denied that being homeless is a status. instead, the court agreed with the city that camping or sleeping in public are activities, not statuses, despite the plaintiffs’ evidence that for homeless people, there is no difference between criminalizing “being homeless” and criminalizing “sleeping in public.” the decision is surprisingly thin on eighth amendment analysis. it declines to engage with plaintiffs’ arguments that criminalizing sleeping imposes disproportionate punishment or imposes punishment without a legitimate deterrent or rehabilitative goal. instead, the court returned over and over to the idea that the 9th circuit’s decision required judges to make impermissible policy decisions about how to respond to homelessness. the court also extensively cited friend of the court briefs from cities and others discussing the difficulties of addressing homelessness. significantly, however, neither these briefs nor the court’s decision cite evidence that criminalization reduces homelessness in any way. in a strong dissent beginning “sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” justice sonia sotomayor, joined by justices elena kagan and ketanji brown jackson, quoted extensively from the record in the case. the dissent included some shocking statements from the grants pass city council, such as “maybe [the homeless people] aren’t hungry enough or cold enough … to make a change in their behavior.” sotomayor noted that time, place and manner restrictions on sleeping in public are perfectly permissible under the ninth circuit’s analysis, and that the inevitable line drawing problems upon which the majority dwells are a normal part of constitutional interpretation. she also observed that the majority’s contention that the ninth circuit’s rule is unworkable was belied by oregon’s own actions: in 2021, the state legislature codified the martin v. boise ruling into law. homelessness is a massive problem in the u.s. the number of people without homes held steady during the covid 19 pandemic largely because of eviction moratoriums and the temporary availability of expanded public benefits, but it has risen sharply since 2022. scholars and policymakers have spent many years analyzing the causes of homelessness. they include wage stagnation, shrinking public benefits, inadequate treatment for mental illness and addiction, and the politics of siting affordable housing. there is little disagreement, however, that the simple mismatch between the vast need for affordable housing and the limited supply is a central cause. increasing homelessness, especially its visible manifestations such as tent encampments, has frustrated city residents, businesses and policymakers across the u.s. and led to an increase in crackdowns against homeless people. reports from the national homelessness law center in 2019 and 2021 have tallied hundreds of laws restricting camping, sleeping, sitting, lying down, panhandling and loitering in public. under presidents barack obama and joe biden, the federal government has asserted that criminal sanctions are rarely useful. instead it has emphasized alternatives, such as supportive services, specialty courts and coordinated systems of care, along with increased housing supply. some cities have had striking success with these measures. but not all communities are on board. i expect that this ruling will prompt some jurisdictions to continue or increase crackdowns on the homeless, despite the complete lack of evidence that such measures reduce homelessness. what such laws may well accomplish is to push the issue into other towns, as grants pass officials candidly admitted they sought to do. the decision will likely put even more pressure on jurisdictions that choose not to criminalize homelessness, such as los angeles, whose mayor, karen bass, has condemned the ruling. while this ruling resolves the eighth amendment claims against sleeping bans, litigation over homeless policy is doubtless far from over. this is an updated version of an article originally published april 17, 2024. this article is republished from the conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. it was written by: clare pastore, university of southern california read more: spikes, seat dividers, even ‘baby shark’ − camping bans like the one under review at scotus are part of broader strategies that push out homeless people when people are under economic stress, their pets suffer too   we found parts of detroit that are animal welfare deserts excessively high rents are a major burden for immigrants in us cities clare pastore is a former senior counsel for the american civil liberties union of southern california, which is one of the aclu offices included in the organization's amicus brief in the case supporting the homeless litigants in city of grants pass v. johnson. her employment with the aclu ended in 2007, years before this case was filed.

in downtown atlanta, shipping containers have been transformed into an oasis for dozens of previously unsheltered people who now proudly call a former parking lot home. wow, that’s pretty good! i usually recommend to local homeless people to make their way to the other coast (la, sf, portland, etc) because the services they get are much better there. but maybe now i can instead recommend making their way to atlanta which is much closer. did you read the link? atlanta was not the only city mentioned. do you make your move to the west coast advice to people like this woman quoted in the article? “i’m just so grateful,” said cynthia diamond, a 61 year old former line cook who uses a wheelchair and used to be chronically homeless. “i have my own door key. i ain’t got to worry about nobody knocking on my door, telling me when to eat, sleep or do anything. i’m going to stay here as long as the lord allows me to stay here.” did you read the link? atlanta was not the only city mentioned. yes. but atlanta is the closest to florida! also denver isn’t particularly hospitable to homeless because it gets real cold in the winter. if you’re already going to make your way from the east coast, you may as well skip denver and go to la where the weather is much better overall. i like the oregon approach. here is one example, in eugene or. an affordable tiny home community developed by squareone villages in eugene, oregon. i think, it ends up being cheaper to build and the individuals contribute sweat equity to their eventual tiny home. that could work for those who are unhoused because of economics and who want to have a place to live. what about the hardcore unhoused, who are mentally ill or drug addicted, who don’t want to live anywhere else but the streets? my gut tells me these folks are a significant portion of those without a place to live.  peter @ptheland   i hear what you are saying. there is obviously various types of folks within the homeless community. and obviously, the example of the community in oregon will not work for each homeless person. but, it is a start, and could work for some. if one takes care of a certain percentage of the homeless community under, say $40,000 per housing unit, that will likely bring the overall average down. there is a san jose tiny homes project for the homeless that i recently learned about. there is a major city developer who has backed that project. will be interesting to see how that one progresses. there was an article in the ny times a few days ago on a los angeles “tiny home” camp for the homeless. one gripe was that operators would assign two strangers to one of these 64 sq ft “garden sheds”. one man found the arrangement problematic since you don’t know how crazy or violent your roommate may be in that tiny enclosed space. as the supreme court weighs whether cities can criminalize sleeping outdoors or in tents, los angeles is attempting to combat homelessness with tiny homes criticized by some as ‘inhumane.’ we have 3 or 4 similar camps in vancouver, but they allow residents to occupy a shed as a single, if that’s their preference, as well as “two to a shed” for friends or romantic partners who want to double up. so far, it seems to be working and i’m seeing fewer people in tents by the side of the road. but i’m still seeing a roving fleet of derilect rvs that stay parked on the street for a day or two until the police threatens to tow them. and every night there’s a few people sleeping in their cars before they leave in the morning (often in a fast food uniform) for a job that doesn’t provide enough income to rent an apartment. “low income housing” requires an income of 80% of the county median (about $85,000/yr, county median income is $106,000) to rent an apartment. i don’t know where they expect people with an income below that to live. vancouver considers 2 new ‘safe stay’ sites for homeless people after initial successes   opb intercst powered by discourse, best viewed with javascript enabled

supported by california housing is a crisis newsom can take into his own hands having survived a recall vote, the governor is free to focus on the state’s homeless population and housing shortage. he has more room to maneuver than he did when he first took office. by conor dougherty ahead of the recall, newsom lets a polarizing housing bill sit on his desk. the governor has not publicly discussed the bill, which would allow duplexes on lots throughout california, as he navigates the complex politics of a recall election. by conor dougherty los angeles goes to war with itself over homelessness the pandemic has intensified a bitter, yearslong fight over homelessness in the city   with no end in sight. by jaime lowe sacramento mulls a new homeless strategy: legally mandating housing the mayor called for a “right to housing” law as the homelessness crisis intensifies in cities across california. by shawn hubler the building, now boarded up, was made famous when it was featured on the cover of the 1970 album “morrison hotel.” by tim balk the city relies on an army of case managers to help homeless people stay in motels and on the path toward finding an apartment. by jill cowan while l.a. county grapples with homelessness, elegant new housing projects in long beach and venice signal the solutions   and challenges   ahead. by michael kimmelman two federal agencies, backed by ample funding from congress, have quietly shown that it is possible to make progress on a seemingly intractable problem. by jason deparle the reduction was a sign of progress for mayor karen bass, who started an aggressive new program to move people off the streets in 2022. by jill cowan as the supreme court weighs whether cities can criminalize sleeping outdoors or in tents, los angeles is attempting to combat homelessness with tiny homes that some people criticize as inadequate and even ‘inhumane.’ by ronda kaysen, karen hanley and james surdam as the supreme court weighs whether cities can criminalize sleeping outdoors or in tents, los angeles is attempting to combat homelessness with tiny homes criticized by some as ‘inhumane.’ by ronda kaysen homeowners in areas battered by climate disasters are facing dizzying insurance rate increases. but builders of housing for the homeless and other low income families are also struggling. by david w. chen the “yes in god’s backyard” movement to build affordable housing on faith organizations’ properties is gaining steam in california and elsewhere. by conor dougherty more than a year into her term, mayor karen bass has cleared encampments and moved thousands of people into motels. what happens next is unclear. by jill cowan

new video loaded: a look at one way california is tackling homelessness live 2:07 3:02 3:42 2:36 2:24 live 2:15 2:24 2:22 2:35 2:40
as the supreme court weighs whether cities can criminalize sleeping outdoors or in tents, los angeles is attempting to combat homelessness with tiny homes criticized by some as ‘inhumane.’ as the supreme court weighs whether cities can criminalize sleeping outdoors or in tents, los angeles is attempting to combat homelessness with tiny homes criticized by some as ‘inhumane.’ credit...stella kalinina for the new york times supported by by ronda kaysen reporting from sun valley, calif. for two years, james valdez lived in his s.u.v., so it was a relief when he moved into branford village, a community of tiny homes, in los angeles. and then the flood came. and then another. during the first flood in august 2023, the water rose to the steering wheel of his s.u.v. six months later in february, when water rushed through the complex again, residents were evacuated out of knee high water to emergency shelters. “you learn to live with it,” said mr. valdez, 58, whose 2016 gmc acadia somehow survived ruin. “at least you have a bed.” roughly 150 recently homeless people live in the complex of tiny homes, part of los angeles’s effort to combat homelessness. at a time when the supreme court is weighing whether cities can criminalize sleeping outdoors or in tents, tiny homes offer a cheap and efficient way to erect shelters, delivering a stop gap fix to a national housing crisis. the country is short a staggering 7.3 million homes for extremely low income renters, according to the national low income housing coalition. a record 12.1 million americans pay more than half their income in rent, according to census data, and a record 653,100 americans were homeless on a given night in january 2023.

 lindsay whitehurst, associated press lindsay whitehurst, associated press leave your feedback washington (ap)   the supreme court decided on friday that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in west coast areas where shelter space is lacking. the case is the most significant to come before the high court in decades on the issue and comes as a rising number of people in the u.s. are without a permanent place to live. watch: supreme court hears case on whether cities can criminalize homelessness, disband camps in a 6 3 decision, the high court reversed a ruling by a san francisco based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans amount to cruel and unusual punishment. a bipartisan group of leaders had argued the ruling made it harder for them to manage outdoor encampments encroaching on sidewalks and other public spaces in nine western states. that includes california, which is home to one third of the country’s homeless population. homeless advocates, on the other hand, said that allowing cities to punish people who need a place to sleep would criminalize homelessness and ultimately make the crisis worse.