Today, the Supreme Court ruled cities may enforce bans on unhoused people sleeping outside — even if there is nowhere else for them to go.
The 6-3 vote overturned an earlier decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled such bans amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
California houses nearly one-third of the nation’s homeless population, according to reporting by The Associated Press. Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement that today’s ruling will allow state and local officials to clear “unsafe encampments” from the streets. Newsom also said the decision removes legal ambiguities that have “tied the hands of local officials for years.”
“[Warren v. Chico] severely restricts and delays the City of Chico’s ability to enforce a variety of historically normal, reasonable and common laws to achieve public safety and public health objectives, and to properly maintain public spaces.”— Mark Sorenson, Chico’s City Manager
What the decision means for Chico
Last year, the city of Chico filed an amicus brief in support of the decision that was announced today. The city argued in the brief that the law disallowing cities from enforcing bans on unhoused individuals sleeping outdoors prohibited the city from efficiently dealing with homeless encampments.
Chico referenced its own Warren v. Chico court case in the amicus brief. The 2021 case prevents the city from enforcing anti-camping ordinances when there isn't adequate shelter available for unhoused residents.
Today City Manager Mark Sorensen wrote in an email to NSPR that the Warren settlement agreement has made regulating health and safety challenging in Chico.
“The federal court order in place [Warren v. Chico] severely restricts and delays the City of Chico’s ability to enforce a variety of historically normal, reasonable and common laws to achieve public safety and public health objectives, and to properly maintain public spaces,” he wrote.
Warren v. Chico is not contingent upon other court cases, but it expires in 2027. After today’s Supreme Court decision, the city could appeal the settlement. Sorensen wrote that the settlement agreement will remain in place until it’s challenged in court, saying the city council “will be considering options.”
Legal Services of Northern California (LSNC) — the law firm representing the unhoused residents involved in Warren v. Chico — released a statement responding to today’s high court decision. It expressed concern about the ruling, while emphasizing that it will not directly impact the Warren v. Chico settlement agreement.
“While the lawsuit that spurred the settlement agreement was based in part on the holding of Martin v. Boise, the Supreme Court’s holding today in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson neither negates the Chico settlement agreement, nor does it disturb the rights of unhoused people, or any people, to be lawfully present in public spaces.”
“The Supreme Court’s holding today in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson neither negates the Chico settlement agreement, nor does it disturb the rights of unhoused people, or any people, to be lawfully present in public spaces.”— Legal Services of Northern California
LSNC also wrote in the release that it was, “confident that the city of Chico intends to honor its commitments to all Chico residents to increase access to safe shelter and to observe the rights of the unsheltered to safeguard their persons and their property when they cannot access shelter.”
The law firm added that the ruling might allow municipalities to overreach with their homelessness policies, which could "degrade the rights of unhoused Californians and further criminalize homelessness."
Chico councilmember Addison Winslow said he worries today’s ruling could lead to crackdowns on homelessness in surrounding communities that might affect Chico.
“We're going to see that people just end up scattered everywhere and some of those people will likely scatter to Chico,” Winslow said. “I worry that that will only exacerbate the concerns that people have, and a lot of people will just feel even more resentment.”
Winslow said a lot can change in the city after Warren v. Chico comes to an end.
“So we need to think, as the people of Chico, how do we want to deal with this?” Winslow said, and “the four seats that are up this November are going to be the majority when the Warren v. Chico settlement expires.”
NSPR reached out to all city council members about the impact of the decision and is still waiting for a response from most members.
“What this decision has done is it leaves municipalities free … to fully criminalize and punish homelessness. Which I imagine will drive people to nearby communities that are less punitive.”— Lauren Kennedy, Program Director for Safe Space
Local homeless advocates want to see funding for solutions
Taylor Bunch, Executive Director of Chico’s True North Housing Alliance which runs the Torres Community Shelter, said encampments often form as a result of no viable alternatives. The Torres Shelter is one of the few walk-in shelters open in Chico.
Bunch said enforcing anti-camping ordinances is far more expensive than investing in solutions. For example, she said her organization is working on a homeless navigation program and she’d like to see the city invest in it.
“Our community can spend nearly $14 million annually for the estimated 346 chronically unhoused individuals in our community, or we can come together to invest $1 million to build the Navigation Center to break the cycle of homelessness in our community."
Charles Wuthuhn, volunteer president of the nonprofit North State Shelter Team, called the decision "contrary to the wisdom of any ethical teaching."
Like Bunch, he also emphasized the high cost of policies like encampment removals.
Lauren Kennedy, Program Director of the nonprofit Safe Space, said nearby communities may need to step up to provide services that help reduce homelessness.
"What this decision has done is it leaves municipalities free … to fully criminalize and punish homelessness. Which I imagine will drive people to nearby communities that are less punitive," Kennedy said. "We're lucky that we have some very proactive neighbors.”
“The evidence is clear that when we criminalize people who are homeless, we just push people around. We’ve done quite a bit of research in this area … and using law enforcement to try to solve the homelessness issue is not effective in any way.”— Susan Roll, Co-founder of Chico State’s Housing Research Group
She pointed to organizations in Oroville and Glenn County that she said “have really tried to address root causes of homelessness and provide enough shelter."
NSPR also reached out to Jesus Center and Chico Housing Action Team and is still awaiting comment.
Chico State researchers fear what the decision could mean for long-term solutions
Researchers with Chico State’s Housing Research Group told NSPR in April that they feared a Supreme Court decision allowing enforcement could stall progress in Chico.
Susan Roll, professor of social work at the university and co-founder of the group, said that relying on law enforcement to clear encampments is not a long-term solution.
“The evidence is clear that when we criminalize people who are homeless, we just push people around,” she said. “We've done quite a bit of research in this area, as have many scholars across the country, and using law enforcement to try to solve the homelessness issue is not effective in any way.”
Roll said that had the city of Chico not been legally required to have shelter options before enforcing its anti-camping ordinances, the Genesis Shelter likely would not have been built. She said it is unfortunate the shelter resulted from a court settlement, but it has achieved positive results.
“It wasn't a sort of a concerted effort of our community coming together and saying ‘what are our best practices,’” she said. “And yet, the Genesis emergency shelter is housing over 250 individuals that were formerly living on the streets, many of them have moved towards more permanent housing.”
Jennifer Wilking, the group’s co-founder and chair of the Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice at Chico State, said it's unlikely shelter beds would disappear. But, if Warren v. Chico were overturned as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, the city may be less incentivized to add beds in the future.
“I don't see us undoing what's already been done. But I think going forward, our policies and our enforcement of ordinances would go back ... That is what I would predict.”
