Featured News, Siskiyou

Supreme Court Ruling Empowers Local Governments to Address Homeless Encampments

In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of increased local authority to manage homeless encampments in the case of City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. This ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for how cities and states address the growing issue of homelessness.

California Governor Gavin Newsom welcomed the decision, stating it “provides state and local officials the definitive authority to implement and enforce policies to clear unsafe encampments from our streets.” The governor emphasized that this ruling removes legal ambiguities that have previously hindered local officials’ ability to take action.

Prior to this decision, many local governments found themselves constrained by earlier rulings from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which limited their options for addressing homelessness. The new ruling is expected to give officials more flexibility in managing encampments, particularly those posing health and safety concerns.

Governor Newsom reassured that California remains committed to addressing homelessness with compassion, stating the state will “continue to work… to provide individuals experiencing homelessness with the resources they need to better their lives.” To this end, California has allocated $1 billion to its Encampment Resolution Fund, aimed at moving individuals from dangerous encampments into shelter and housing.

As local governments begin to interpret and implement policies based on this new ruling, the balance between public safety and the rights of homeless individuals remains a critical consideration.

One Comment

  1. The Native American

    When they were “deciding”during the cold/winter time a while back and said they would give their “final decision” in the summer, I already knew what “their decision” was and what was going to happen: Easier to move them out come summer than in the winter.

    I guess the only fighting chance is challenging the semantics of this outcome if stated “unsafe encampments from our streets”.

    1) The Encampment in Yreka is not on the street but on a hill (so it shouldn’t apply)
    2) As far as unsafe goes, I think it should be left up to the town/city if it becomes too problematic but this part shouldn’t be exercised if no one is causing any issues or unsafe conditions and there’s some agreement to keep the peace
    3) Maybe re-define what constitutes what being homeless is and instead call them campers (e.g. the people on the hill aren’t homeless but permanent outdoor campers, so mandates shouldn’t apply)

    If there’s a way around it, then I hope they can find one. I am sorry many people are going through this and these horrible economic times.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *