Could Supreme Court case render SF homelessness battle 'irrelevant?'

While that question remains unanswered, the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office wants a pause on a similar case in San Francisco that will, in some shape or form, be affected by an eventual Supreme Court ruling.

“Not a single argument against San Francisco can be untangled from Grants Pass,” City Attorney David Chiu said in a statement on Thursday. “It makes no sense to spend months litigating this case and expend enormous resources collecting evidence and expert testimony when the entire legal landscape may soon change.”

Chiu’s office filed a formal motion for a stay on Thursday, arguing that its voluminous work preparing for a trial may be rendered “irrelevant” by a Supreme Court decision in the Grants Pass case.

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, which is spearheading the case against San Francisco, rejects that argument.

“Even with the Supreme Court’s review of Grants Pass underway, the case in San Francisco should proceed,” said Nisha Kashyap, a senior staff attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, said in a statement. “Unhoused people should not continue to be subject to these unlawful practices, and the entire community deserves a timely resolution to all the important issues at stake in the case.”

Since it was announced that the Supreme Court would review this issue last week, advocates for the homeless in San Francisco have made clear they believe the local case stands on its own — and that it raises several concerns that won’t be tackled by the Supreme Court’s stance on Grants Pass.

The findings of the nine justices will impact San Francisco and cities throughout the country that are grappling with a homelessness crisis. But no matter what the Supreme Court decides, San Francisco has a litany of questions and conundrums it must solve on its own when it comes to how to rein in homelessness.

Grants Pass

In Blake v. City of Grants Pass, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Grants Pass violated Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment when it issued citations against “involuntary homeless” people camping on public property when there was nowhere else for them to go.

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case, which sparked renewed debate about whether judges were hamstringing cities in their efforts to clear homeless encampments.

That’s a question at play in San Francisco’s case, but not the only one it asks.

Homeless advocates filed a lawsuit against The City in 2022 that alleged The City’s sweeps of encampments were violating several constitutional protections.

They won a temporary injunction from a U.S. District Court Judge, later upheld by the 9th Circuit, that restricts The City from conducting homeless sweeps unless, among other conditions, it offers shelter to those living on the street.

In its recent rejection of San Francisco’s quest to overturn the preliminary injunction, 9th Circuit judges found that “we remain bound by Martin (v. Boise) and Johnson, as does the district court” in its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment.

But 9th Circuit Judge Patrick J. Bumatay dissented and scoffed at what he perceived as the court’s expansion of constitutional protections offered by the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment.

“Our decision is cruel because it leaves the citizens of San Francisco powerless to enforce their own health and safety laws without the permission of a federal judge,” Bumatay wrote.

Even if it’s likely that the Supreme Court rules in Grants Pass’ favor, advocates in San Francisco are confident they still have a case here because their arguments do not center entirely on the Eighth Amendment.

In addition, San Francisco stands accused of also violating the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures — as well as The City’s own laws — when its workers confiscate belongings from encampments and fail to “tag” them, which would allow residents to pick them up at a later date.

The advocates have also alleged that San Francisco violates the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to offer shelter that is actually accessible to people with disabilities, as well as violating 14th Amendment rights “against state-created dangers.”

“The City’s custom and practice of removing unhoused people from public space and seizing and destroying their personal property, such as tents and other survival gear, also deprives unhoused residents of the very belongings they need to rebuild their lives and break the cycle of homelessness, and often puts their physical and mental health at risk,” the lawsuit states.

Even if the Supreme Court eviscerates the 9th Circuit’s interpretation of Eighth Amendment protections, The City’s own laws prohibit clearing encampments when adequate shelter is unavailable, argued Zal Shroff, Acting Legal Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights.

“That’s an enforceable right — that any person actually in San Francisco (has) the authority to bring an action against The City for failing to comply with its own laws,” Shroff told The Examiner in an interview on Wednesday, prior to Chiu’s announcement.

Each of those arguments, advocates claim, are entirely separate from the questions asked by Grants Pass.

On some level, cities and advocates on both sides are eager for answers.

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, who has been sharply critical of the District Court and 9th Circuit rulings in San Francisco, argues that the current ambiguity is untenable for the workers asked to clear street encampments. He worries about city workers having to constantly ask themselves if they’re violating a person’s constitutional rights while going about their job.

“It further freezes a response that, in my view, has not been nearly robust enough,” Mandelman told The Examiner last week.

Representatives of the homeless hope clarity from the courts will not only help protect those without housing, but encourage cities to take on other approaches to combating homelessness. Shroff argued those would include investing in affordable housing and permanent supportive housing.