On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that cities can now ban unhoused individuals from sleeping in public areas. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the court ruled that this decision does not violate the Eighth Amendment, the cruel and unusual punishment clause.
This decision is localized, as San Diego, San Marcos, Escondido, Chula Vista, National City and other cities have voted unanimously to carry out these laws to criminalize encampment.
According to High Country News, the “recent Supreme Court decision … even when no shelter is available, [reversed] a 9th Circuit Court decision that provided some protection to people sleeping outdoors.” In 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court decision ruled that it was unconstitutional to punish someone for sleeping in public if the individual had nowhere else to go.
The ruling threatens the well-being of the unhoused population. According to Cal Matters, the latest count of Californians without homes in December 2023 was more than 181,000 people. California’s unhoused population accounts for a third of the entire nation’s unhoused population.
With numbers this high, a significantly large amount of the population in California is being affected.
A true question lies in who this ban is benefiting and affecting. According to Vista Mayor John Franklin of Cal Matters, “the problem is out of control, and residents are demanding a solution.” But, “advocates for the rights of unhoused people worry the push toward enforcement will make the problem worse. Without opening more shelters or affordable housing, breaking up homeless camps will do nothing but shuffle people from one spot to another.”
Advocates for the rights of unhoused people are concerned about displacing unhoused people as they believe it may make matters worse. It “can sever their ties to case workers, medical clinics and other vital services. That disruption — in addition to fines and arrests — makes it harder for people to find housing.”
The effect of this decision has been carefully evaluated by the Supreme Court. However, Justice Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S., emphasized her opposition to the ruling.
According to NPR, “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.’”
“People [who are unhoused] were also moms and dads and brothers and sisters,” Karina Martinez, a recovering addict who is an alumna and a volunteer program coordinator of Solutions for Change said in an interview from April last year.
Many people believe that unhoused individuals’ rights are being undervalued.
Students have seen the effects of this ban by working with the unhoused population outside of school.
Luke Renda (12), president of the Helping Hands club at the school, has worked with the disenfranchised population of San Diego for several years. Renda and his club members work directly with the Bridge of Hope, an organization in downtown San Diego that helps reintegrate refugees and struggling individuals into American society.
“I’ve spent countless hours and lots of time in many different ways helping this population,” Renda said. “I collect furniture and deliver it to the Bridge of Hope, as well as spend time serving food, working holiday fairs and [organizing] drives for towels, pillows and other necessities.”
The club aims to provide as much support as possible to individuals experiencing hardships. Renda’s time spent with this community has allowed him to see firsthand how they are being affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Renda believes the encampment ban will only relocate the unhoused population and create little to no effect on the overall issue.
“Unfortunately, these people don’t have a lot of other places to go,” Renda said. “I don’t really think that the Supreme Court’s decision has really changed the number of encampments, just their geography.”
