US Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case on Homelessness

The US Supreme court decided not to hear a case from Boise, Idaho that had an ordinance around homelessness. NPR has this short description:

The case stems from a lawsuit filed nearly a decade ago. A handful of people sued the city of Boise for repeatedly ticketing them for violating an ordinance against sleeping outside. While Boise officials later amended it to prohibit citations when shelters are full, the 9th Circuit eventually determined the local law was unconstitutional . . . That means states across the 9th Circuit can no longer enforce similar statutes if they don't have enough shelter beds for homeless people sleeping outside.



Via the Los Angeles Times, there is speculation on why the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case:

. . . In examining the appeal, the justices were faced with whether to decide a major question of whether there is a constitutional right to sleep on the sidewalk in a case in which the city was no longer enforcing the ordinances in question.

Just two weeks ago, the high court faced a similar dilemma in a gun-rights case from New York City. 

. . . The case raised a broad question about whether the 2nd Amendment’s “right to bear arms” protected a right to carry a weapon in public. But during the oral argument on Dec. 2, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and several of his colleagues strongly hinted the case should be dismissed because the city was no longer enforcing the disputed ordinance. 

Los Angeles was one of among many cities and counties that wanted to get clarification from the Supreme Court on the issue of how they can deal with homelessness. The article states that by declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court was handing a major victory to homeless activists. However, if the Court simply decided not to hear the case, because it was no longer an issue, I'm not sure if it is really a victory other than it draws things out. I bet this was probably one of those rare moments where West Coast liberal politicians were hoping that the conservative Supreme Court would provide some guidance.

 Another Los Angeles Times article has the following:

The result, some officials and homeless advocates say, is likely to be an upswing of newfound political will to build more permanent supportive housing and temporary shelters to get people off the streets.

. . . Sacramento Mayor Darrell] Steinberg, who opposed his own city’s push to have the Supreme Court hear the Boise case, has been crafting a plan with [L.A. County Supervisor Mark] Ridley-Thomas for a possible statewide ballot measure to create a legal “right to shelter” or “right to housing.”

You know what I think when I hear about a statewide ballot:

1. $600,000 per unit costs.
2. Union money maker.
3. In extreme case, the state given the right to take property away from property owners.

I am very skeptical of the value of building apartment units for the homeless. What I would be supportive of is expanding barrack type homeless shelters that would remain open year round versus just during the winter months.