Amicus Curiae Brief — City of Grants Pass, Oregon, Petitioner v. Gloria Johnson, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated
Supreme Court briefMar 4, 2024
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. 23-175
In the Supreme Court of the United States
——————
CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON,
Petitioner,
v.
GLORIA JOHNSON, ET AL.,
Respondents.
——————
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
——————
BRIEF OF NEIGHBORS FOR A BETTER SAN
FRANCISCO AND MORE THAN 300 SAN
FRANCISCO-BASED BUSINESS OWNERS
AND EXECUTIVES, CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS,
PROFESSIONALS, AND NEIGHBORHOOD
LEADERS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF
PETITIONER
——————
CHRISTOPHER G. MICHEL
TERRENCE L. GEORGE
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART Counsel of Record
RACHEL G. FRANK
& SULLIVAN, LLP
MICHAEL SEBRING
191 N. Wacker Drive
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
Suite 2700
& SULLIVAN, LLP
Chicago, IL 60606
1300 I Street, N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 538-8308
christophermichel@
quinnemanuel.com
Counsel for Amici Curiae
i
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether a municipal government’s enforcement of
generally applicable laws regulating sleeping and
camping on public property constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... iv
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................ 1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENT ...................................................... 2
ARGUMENT ................................................................. 5
I.
II.
San Francisco’s Experiences
Demonstrate The Dire Effect Of The
Ninth Circuit’s Rulings ..................................... 5
A.
San Francisco Faces An
Increasingly Dire Homelessness
Crisis ....................................................... 5
B.
San Francisco’s Attempts To
Address Its Homelessness Crisis
Have Been Undermined By The
Ninth Circuit ........................................ 13
The Ninth Circuit’s Decision Is Wrong ......... 18
A.
The Eighth Amendment Does
Not Prohibit State Or Local
Governments From Punishing
Proscribed Conduct .............................. 18
B.
The Ninth Circuit Badly
Misinterpreted the Eighth
Amendment .......................................... 21
C.
The Ninth Circuit’s Decisions
Undermine Core Principles of
iii
Federalism and Judicial
Restraint ............................................... 24
CONCLUSION ........................................................... 28
APPENDIX A
List of Amici Curiae ........................................ 2a
APPENDIX B
Lawsuits Filed Under Martin v. City of
Boise and Johnson v. Grants Pass ............... 15a
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
City of Chicago v. Morales,
527 U.S. 41 (1999) ................................................. 22
Coal. on Homelessness v. City & Cnty. of
S.F., 2022 WL 17905114 (N.D. Cal.
Dec. 23, 2022) .......................................4, 7-9, 13-15
Coal. on Homelessness v. City & Cnty. of
S.F., 90 F.4th 975 (9th Cir. 2024) ....... 4, 17, 18, 23
Coal. on Homelessness v. City & Cnty. of
S.F., 2024 WL 125340 (9th Cir. Jan.
11, 2024) ................................................................ 16
Gregg v. Georgia,
428 U.S. 153 (1976)............................................... 25
Harmelin v. Michigan,
501 U.S. 957 (1991)............................................... 26
Ingraham v. Wright,
430 U.S. 651 (1977)............................................... 19
Jones v. Hendrix,
599 U.S. 465 (2023)............................................... 18
Jones v. United States,
463 U.S. 354 (1983)............................................... 26
Kahler v. Kansas,
140 S. Ct. 1021 (2020) .......................................... 22
v
Kennedy v. Louisiana,
554 U.S. 407 (2008)............................................... 25
Manning v. Caldwell,
930 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2019) .................... 20, 23, 25
Martin v. City of Boise,
920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019)
................................................. 2-3, 14, 19, 21, 23-24
Powell v. Texas,
392 U.S. 514 (1968)............................. 19, 20, 24, 25
Roberts v. Louisiana,
431 U.S. 633 (1977)............................................... 25
Robinson v. California,
370 U.S. 660 (1962)......................................... 19, 21
Tobe v. City of Santa Ana,
892 P.2d 1145 (Cal. 1995) .................................... 26
Statutes
S.F., Cal., Police Code § 169(c) .................................. 13
Other Authorities
Alex Bitter & Jordan Hart, Nordstrom
Closes Flagship Location as Office
Vacancies and Fears of Crime Rise
in San Francisco, BUSINESS INSIDER
(Aug. 29, 2023), http://tinyurl.com/6t73n2jd ............................................... 11
vi
Andrea Cavallier, Inside San
Francisco’s Open Air Drug Market,
DAILY MAIL (Jan. 25, 2022),
https://tinyurl.com/yz77b8kz ................................. 8
Betty Yu, Homeless Encampment Fires
Plague Residents of San Francisco
Tenderloin District Building, CBS
NEWS BAY AREA (June 27, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/mw9skjt7............................... 10
C.Y. Liu et al., Communicable Disease
Among People Experiencing Homelessness in California, 148 E PIDEMIOLOGY & INFECTION e85 (2020),
https://tinyurl.com/4dan2jvk ................................. 9
Candy Store Owner, Employee and Customer Attacked at San Francisco
Store, KTVU (Sept. 28, 2023),
http://tinyurl.com/yc7ejnf8 ................................... 12
Caroline J. Waddell et al., Possible Undetected Mpox Infection Among Persons Accessing Homeless Services
and Staying in Encampments —
San Francisco, California, October–
November 2022, CTRS. FOR DISEASE
CONTROL & PREVENTION: MORBIDITY
AND MORTALITY WKLY. REP. (Mar. 3,
2023), https://tinyurl.com/2s3b9e8t ...................... 9
vii
Da Lin, ‘Coming to the City, I'm Sorry,
It's Scary’; Safety Fears Linger in
Wake of a Violent Week in San Francisco, CBS NEWS BAY AREA , (Apr. 8,
2023), https://tinyurl.com/3ncyxpnd ..................... 9
Dan Thorn, Homeless Encampment Fire
Destroys Woman’s Car in San
Francisco, KRON4 (July 28, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/yc4p833j ................................ 10
David Sjostedt, San Francisco homeless
encampments: Tensions boil over on
one of city’s busiest streets, S.F.
STANDARD (Oct. 20, 2023), http://tinyurl.com/mt2rj9eu .............................................. 13
Dion Lim, Drug Dealing, Defecation,
Debris: SF Street Causing ‘Chaos’ for
Homeowners, Businesses, ABC 7
NEWS (June 23, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/2k2he3rn................................................ 8
Erin McCormick, The Daily Battle to
Keep People Alive as Fentanyl Ravages San Francisco’s Tenderloin,
THE GUARDIAN (Apr. 23, 2022),
https://tinyurl.com/mr2r44ab ................................ 9
Henry O’Loughlin, Every Business
Leaving San Francisco, BUILD
REMOTE (2020–2023) (Sept. 3, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/3sruvfpk ................................ 10
viii
Isabel Keane, Luxury San Francisco
store may close after 166 years due to
‘litany of destructive’ policies making
the city ‘unlivable’, N.Y. POST (Aug.
16, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/5n7ctk5v................................ 13
James Gordon, San Francisco Whole
Foods Made More Than 560
Emergency Calls Over 13 Months
After Rampant Drug Use In
Restrooms, People Defecating On The
Floor, Violence Towards Staff, DAILY
MAIL (May 1, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/mr3y6b5p .............................. 11
Jeremy B. White, Newsom Urges
SCOTUS to Consider Encampment
Ruling That Has ‘Paralyzed’
California Cities, POLITICO (Sept. 22,
2023), http://tinyurl.com/rpcf9fud ....................... 18
Jonah Lamb, Corpse: What Workers
Face Outside San Francisco Federal
Building, S.F. S TANDARD (Sept. 8,
2023), https://tinyurl.com/9a7t9xfm.................... 27
Josh Koehn & David Sjostedt, Homeless
encampment fires in San Francisco
doubled over 5 years, causing millions in damage, S.F. STANDARD
(Feb. 7, 2024), http://tinyurl.com/5n6jjmws ............................................. 10
ix
Joshua Rhett Miller, Old Navy to
Nordstrom: Half of Retailers Fleeing
Downtown San Francisco, NY POST
(June 21, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/9jjj29us................................................. 10
Justine Waldman, SF Business Owners
Concerned About Homeless Near
Store, KRON4 (May 23, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/4dx6czj7 ................................ 12
Katy Grimes, San Francisco Collapse:
More Store Closures, Lawlessness,
Drugs, Homeless, CAL. G LOBE (May
11, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/2z7v5fn8 ................................ 12
Kevin Fisher-Paulson, SF Retains
Beauty Despite All Our Decorating,
S.F. CHRON. (Jan. 30, 2018),
https://tinyurl.com/2s4hky9w ................................ 5
Lezla Gooden, SF Apartment Building
Seeks Help as Homeless Encampment Grows Underneath, CBS NEWS
BAY AREA (July 19, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/ycynt574 ................................................ 7
Lyanna Melendez, Some Federal Employees in SF Asked to Work From
Home Amid Drug, Crime Concerns:
Report, ABC 7 NEWS (Aug. 14,
2023), https://tinyurl.com/bdew9zdk ................... 27
x
Mallory Moench, Dad Reveals Horrific
Details of Baby’s Reported Fentanyl
Overdose at S.F. Playground, S.F.
CHRON. (Nov. 30, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/46few9nn ............................................... 8
Maureen Kelly, San Francisco Business
Owner Considering Closing Shop
After Being Bitten by Homeless
Person Twice, KRON4 (Sept. 10,
2019), https://tinyurl.com/5h2e9ukm .................... 9
Megan Cassidy, Crime Is So Bad Near
S.F. Federal Building Employees Are
Told to Work From Home, Officials
Said, S.F. CHRON. (Aug. 11, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/58xdxcdu ............................... 27
Michael Thomas et al., Residents: We
Warned SF City Leaders Before
Massive Fire, KRON4 (Aug. 2, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/ned4r4c6................................ 10
Miles Dilworth, San Francisco Exodus
Gather Pace: T-Mobile Shutters
Flagship Store After Nordstrom And
Saks Off Fifth Shut-Up Shop, DAILY
MAIL (May 8, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/3p47r82e ............................... 11
Patrick Reilly, San Francisco Shop
Owner Slugged in the Face After
Asking Man to Stop Urinating in
Street, NY POST (Jul. 22, 2023),
http://tinyurl.com/yc2xmvyx ................................ 12
xi
Roland Li, S.F.’s Hotel Pain Could
Spread as More than 30 Owners
Face Mortgages Deadlines, S.F.
CHRONICLE (Jun. 7, 2023), http://tinyurl.com/4cejpj25 ................................................ 11
Ryan Autullo, Austin Voters Choose to
Bring Back Homeless Camping Ban,
AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN (May
1, 2021),
http://tinyurl.com/mjmw56ad .............................. 15
Sam Mauhay-Moore, S.F. Micro-Hotel
Yotel Acquired for $62M in
Foreclosure Auction, S.F. GATE (Oct.
13, 2022),
http://tinyurl.com/3ubb3b5e................................. 11
Sam Whiting, S.F.’s Historic
Huntington Hotel Has Been Sold,
S.F. CHRONICLE (Mar. 20, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/mrar2b5r ............................... 11
San Francisco District Attorney Chesa
Boudin Recalled, 136 HARV . L. REV.
1740, 1741–43 & n.12 (2023) ............................... 14
SF Neighborhood Group Installs Planters Along Sidewalk Once Taken Over
by Homeless Encampment, CBS
NEWS BAY AREA (June 13, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/49ucrtdc .................................. 8
xii
Stephen Council, Downtown San
Francisco is Losing a Bunch of tech
Conferences, Report Says, SFGATE
(Feb. 5, 2024),
http://tinyurl.com/56avme3b................................ 11
U.S. Supreme Court Lets Stand Ruling
That Was Backbone of Austin’s
Camping Ban Repeal, AUSTIN
AMERICAN-STATESMAN (Dec. 16,
2019), http://tinyurl.com/y2fz5nd2 ...................... 15
William Cole, San Francisco Grocery
Store Owner Considers Closing His
Store After Being Bitten by a
Homeless Person for the Second
Time in Four Months, DAILY MAIL
(Sept. 11, 2019),
http://tinyurl.com/34rj5k3v .................................. 12
William J. Stuntz & Joseph L. Hoffman,
DEFINING CRIMES 53 (2011) ................................. 20
Wilson Walker, Homeless Encampment
Sweeps Are Just One Aspect of a System Not Working for SF Residents,
CBS NEWS BAY AREA (Aug. 23,
2023), https://tinyurl.com/3x6ebw9v ................... 16
1
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
Amici curiae are a broad range of San Franciscobased companies, business owners and executives,
other professionals, and neighborhood leaders. They
include a former United States Attorney for the
Northern District of California, a retired Chief of the
San Francisco Police Department, the former Chairman and CEO of Wells Fargo & Co., the CEO and
Chairman of Prologis, the President of Paramount
Hotels, senior members of leading foundations and investment firms, numerous small business owners and
employees, and many other community leaders and
stakeholders. A full list of amici appears as Appendix
A to this brief.
Amici hold widely varying views on many policy
issues, but they agree on the key aspects of this
case: San Francisco is facing a growing homelessness
crisis that endangers the City’s residents, businesses,
visitors, and homeless people themselves. A critical
tool in addressing that crisis is the enforcement of
common-sense public safety laws that prevent homeless encampments from taking over the City’s
streets. By holding that the enforcement of such laws
violates the Eighth Amendment, the Ninth Circuit
committed a serious legal error that will have devastating consequences for cities on the frontlines of the
homelessness crisis. Amici urge the Court to reverse
the flawed decision below.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37, amici affirm that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no one
other than amici or its counsel made a monetary contribution
intended to fund the preparation or submission of the brief.
2
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This case involves a Ninth Circuit decision preventing Grants Pass, Oregon, from enforcing common
sense laws to address the dangers to public safety and
welfare created by homelessness—as well as to improve conditions for homeless people themselves. The
stakes of the Court’s decision, however, will reach far
beyond that single city. Throughout the West, local
governments, business leaders, and residents have
grappled with similar challenges and faced similar
obstacles in the wake of Martin v. City of Boise, 920
F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019). Reversing the Ninth Circuit’s profoundly flawed approach will not only help
restore order and opportunity in Grants Pass, but will
deliver much-needed relief to people in some of our
country’s most important and most troubled cities.
One of those places is San Francisco, which amici
are proud to call home. San Francisco combines spectacular natural beauty, vibrant culture and arts, and
a spirit of innovation that has endured from the Gold
Rush to the Tech Boom. Those features have attracted generations of residents, entrepreneurs, and
visitors. And the City has long prided itself on its
openness and tolerance, welcoming diverse ways of
life and points of view.
Unfortunately, San Francisco now faces a dire crisis arising from homelessness. In many parts of the
City, it is impossible to walk down the sidewalk or enter buildings because of homeless encampments—collections of tents and other personal belongings where
homeless people congregate to live and sleep. En-
3
campments are frequently sites of drug use and violence, endangering both passersby and homeless people themselves. And encampments create other
health and safety risks, ranging from fire to disease.
For too long, San Francisco’s leaders ignored—or
even encouraged—the homelessness crisis. While the
City’s policies may have reflected good intentions,
they were badly misconceived. There is nothing compassionate about abandoning homeless people to the
nightmare of encampments. It is not a hallmark of
progress to let addicts use drugs in public or defecate
on the streets. It is an abdication of the first duty of
government: to enforce the law and protect the people.
Spurred by business and civic groups, including
many of the amici joining this brief, San Francisco’s
leaders have finally started to grapple with the homelessness crisis. The City has devoted vast amounts of
resources to expanding shelter capacity, while beginning to enforce laws to reclaim public spaces for all
members of the community. But just as that belated
response has begun, a new obstacle has emerged.
In Martin, the Ninth Circuit held that a city’s enforcement of laws prohibiting public sleeping and
camping against “involuntarily” homeless people violates the Eighth Amendment. 920 F.3d at 617. Suits
followed against many cities throughout the West, including this suit against Grants Pass and one against
San Francisco. The Ninth Circuit panel in this case
reiterated and expanded Martin’s holding. Pet. App.
42a–55a. Then, relying on Martin and the panel decision in this case, the district court in Coalition on
Homelessness v. City & County of San Francisco enjoined San Francisco from enforcing laws prohibiting
4
similar practices, including two that were adopted by
city voters through referenda in 2010 and 2016. 1 The
Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the core aspects of
that injunction and paused the period for further review pending the Court’s decision in this case. 2
Accordingly, unless this Court reverses the decision below, San Francisco’s efforts to enforce critical
public safety laws will continue to be severely hampered. And the consequences will continue to be tragically predictable: a rise in crime, an exodus of downtown residents and businesses, a decline in tourism,
and—worst of all—even more miserable conditions
for the homeless.
There is no legal foundation for those dire results.
The Ninth Circuit’s decisions in this case, Martin, and
Coalition are an indefensible overreach. They have
no basis in the text or original meaning of the Eighth
Amendment, which cannot plausibly be read to bar
enforcement of public safety laws that impose modest
penalties for defined conduct—not a person’s status.
They violate principles of federalism and judicial restraint by allowing federal courts to displace the policy judgments of local leaders and voters who are closest to the problems. They conflict with the decisions
of other appellate courts—including the California
Supreme Court—upholding similar laws. And they
do not promote values of compassion or tolerance;
they make it more dangerous to live, work, and travel
1 Coal. on Homelessness v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 22-cv-05502, 2022
WL 17905114 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2022) (“Coalition”). This brief
cites the appellate excerpts of record (“ER”) in the Coalition case.
2 Coal. on Homelessness v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 90 F.4th 975
(2024); id. at Dkt. 98.
5
in our nation’s largest cities, and they ultimately
worsen life for the homeless themselves.
When a federal appellate court has enjoined state
and local laws on federal constitutional grounds, local
residents and businesses have nowhere to turn but
this Court. Amici urge the Court to reverse the egregious errors committed by the Ninth Circuit.
ARGUMENT
I.
San Francisco’s Experiences Demonstrate
The Dire Effect Of The Ninth Circuit’s
Rulings
Frank Lloyd Wright once called San Francisco “the
only city I can think of that can survive all the things
[that] people are doing to it and still look beautiful.” 3
The homelessness crisis, exacerbated by the Ninth
Circuit’s decisions, is testing that description. And diminishing the City’s appearance is only the beginning
of the problem. The constraints imposed by the Ninth
Circuit are creating intolerable safety risks and inflicting other profound costs on residents, businesses,
tourists, and homeless people themselves.
A.
San Francisco Faces An Increasingly
Dire Homelessness Crisis
Homelessness is not a new challenge in San Francisco. Amid the City’s vast cultural and economic
prosperity, some people have always lacked housing
for a complex range of reasons. Public and private
entities in the City have responded in different ways
Kevin Fisher-Paulson, SF Retains Beauty Despite All Our
Decorating,
S.F.
CHRON.
(Jan.
30,
2018),
https://tinyurl.com/2s4hky9w.
3
6
at different times, producing what can fairly be described as mixed results. But while the problem has
long persisted, it has generally been manageable.
That has changed. Over the past few years, homelessness in San Francisco has escalated into a crisis.
The problems of earlier eras—struggling people sleeping on park benches or outside shelters—have given
way to the new phenomenon of homeless encampments, where large numbers of people congregate for
extended periods, often with a substantial volume of
belongings. As a result, sidewalks, streets, and other
public spaces in many parts of the City are littered
with an array of tents, tarps, boxes, shopping carts,
cooking gear, trash heaps, spoiled food, suitcases, and
other paraphernalia. The image below (drawn from
the record in the Coalition suit against San Francisco)
is from the Embarcadero near Washington Street, one
of the tourism and commercial centers of the City.
7
Embarcadero near Washington Street 4
In some places, encampments create even more serious problems, obstructing walkways and blocking
entrances to schools, businesses, residences, health
clinics, pharmacies, grocery stores, public transportation, and other critical destinations.5 The result is to
make those places more difficult and dangerous—and
in some cases impossible—to access, posing severe
challenges for daily living. The obstructions also force
more pedestrians (including those with strollers or
wheelchairs) into the streets, where they face greater
4 Coalition, 2-ER-120.
5 See e.g., Lezla Gooden, SF Apartment Building Seeks Help as
Homeless Encampment Grows Underneath, CBS NEWS BAY
AREA (July 19, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/ycynt574.
8
danger from vehicles.6 One of many examples is depicted below.
Erie Street between SOMA and the Mission 7
In effect, a significant number of San Francisco’s
public spaces have been converted into unofficial
open-air public housing facilities. That transformation has far-reaching negative effects. For one, illegal drug use and attendant crime thrive within
homeless encampments, fueling the deadly fentanyl
epidemic and creating new health risks through discarded needles and drugs—some of which end up in
playgrounds or other areas accessible to children. 8
6 SF Neighborhood Group Installs Planters Along Sidewalk Once
Taken Over by Homeless Encampment, CBS NEWS BAY AREA
(June 13, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/49ucrtdc.
7 Coalition, 2-ER-179.
8 Dion Lim, Drug Dealing, Defecation, Debris: SF Street Causing
‘Chaos’ for Homeowners, Businesses, ABC 7 NEWS (June 23,
2023), https://tinyurl.com/2k2he3rn; Mallory Moench, Dad
Reveals Horrific Details of Baby’s Reported Fentanyl Overdose at
S.F.
Playground,
S.F.
CHRON.
(Nov.
30,
2022),
https://tinyurl.com/46few9nn; Andrea Cavallier, Inside San
9
Homeless encampments also lack most elements of
modern sanitation. A recent filing by the City described its collection from an encampment of “items
(including bedding and clothing) soiled by infectious
or hazardous materials, including human waste, body
fluids, mold and mildew, as well as items infested by
rodents and insects, such as rats, mice, fleas, lice and
bed bugs.” 9 Such conditions require homeless people
to endure unthinkable hardships, repel residents and
visitors from approaching, and contribute to the
spread of communicable diseases like tuberculosis. 10
Encampments create other physical risks as well.
They are frequently sites of violence and harassment,
both for passersby and those in the encampments. 11
Francisco’s Open Air Drug Market, DAILY MAIL (Jan. 25, 2022),
https://tinyurl.com/yz77b8kz; Erin McCormick, The Daily Battle
to Keep People Alive as Fentanyl Ravages San Francisco’s
Tenderloin,
THE
GUARDIAN
(Apr.
23,
2022),
https://tinyurl.com/mr2r44ab.
9 Coalition, 5-ER-1047.
10 Caroline J. Waddell et al., Possible Undetected Mpox Infection
Among Persons Accessing Homeless Services and Staying in
Encampments — San Francisco, California, October–November
2022, CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION: MORBIDITY
AND
MORTALITY
WKLY.
REP.
(Mar.
3,
2023),
https://tinyurl.com/2s3b9e8t; C.Y. Liu et al., Communicable
Disease Among People Experiencing Homelessness in California,
148
EPIDEMIOLOGY
&
INFECTION
e85
(2020),
https://tinyurl.com/4dan2jvk.
11 Da Lin, ‘Coming to the City, I'm Sorry, It's Scary’; Safety Fears
Linger in Wake of a Violent Week in San Francisco, CBS NEWS
BAY AREA, (Apr. 8, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/3ncyxpnd; Maureen
Kelly, San Francisco Business Owner Considering Closing Shop
After Being Bitten by Homeless Person Twice, KRON4 (Sept. 10,
2019), https://tinyurl.com/5h2e9ukm.
10
Additionally, the use of open flames in encampments—for cooking, warmth, and drug use—creates
fire hazards.12 In recent months, several fires started
in encampments have spread to other parts of the
community, destroying property and endangering
lives.13 Eight hundred fires have been linked to homeless encampments in 2023, causing millions of dollars
in property damages. 14 San Franciscans with disabilities have suffered greatly, as encampments frequently obstruct sidewalks.
The proliferation of encampments has been devastating to San Francisco’s business and working communities. The ever-expanding roster of companies reducing operations or fleeing the City includes commercial leaders like T-Mobile, AT&T, Banana Republic, Old Navy, Whole Foods, Nordstrom, Disney, Gap,
and Office Depot.15 In the iconic Union Square neighborhood alone, “[a]t least 22 big-name businesses
12 Betty Yu, Homeless Encampment Fires Plague Residents of
San Francisco Tenderloin District Building, CBS NEWS BAY
AREA (June 27, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/mw9skjt7; Dan Thorn,
Homeless Encampment Fire Destroys Woman’s Car in San
Francisco, KRON4 (July 28, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/yc4p833j.
13 Michael Thomas et al., Residents: We Warned SF City Leaders
Before
Massive
Fire,
KRON4
https://tinyurl.com/ned4r4c6.
(Aug.
2,
2023),
14 Josh Koehn & David Sjostedt, Homeless encampment fires in
San Francisco doubled over 5 years, causing millions in damage,
S.F. STANDARD (Feb. 7, 2024), http://tinyurl.com/5n6jjmws.
Joshua Rhett Miller, Old Navy to Nordstrom: Half of Retailers
Fleeing Downtown San Francisco, NY POST (June 21, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/9jjj29us; Henry O’Loughlin, Every Business
Leaving San Francisco, BUILD REMOTE (2020–2023) (Sept. 3,
15
11
have closed or announced plans to flee the area since
January 2022.” 16 And things are only getting worse;
the City has already lost six major 2024 conferences
sponsored by large technology companies, including
Google, Meta, and Samsung.17 Predictably, San Francisco’s hotels have paid a heavy price and since October 2022, at least two San Francisco hotels have been
sold at foreclosure auctions and one hotel owner was
forced to surrender nearly 3,000 rooms after defaulting on a loan.18
Small businesses have been especially hard hit.
The owner of a small grocery store was bitten on two
separate occasions by homeless people and forced to
2023), https://tinyurl.com/3sruvfpk; Alex Bitter & Jordan Hart,
Nordstrom Closes Flagship Location as Office Vacancies and
Fears of Crime Rise in San Francisco, BUSINESS INSIDER (Aug.
29, 2023), http://tinyurl.com/6t73n2jd; Miles Dilworth, San
Francisco Exodus Gather Pace: T-Mobile Shutters Flagship Store
After Nordstrom And Saks Off Fifth Shut-Up Shop, DAILY MAIL
(May 8, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/3p47r82e; James Gordon, San
Francisco Whole Foods Made More Than 560 Emergency Calls
Over 13 Months After Rampant Drug Use In Restrooms, People
Defecating On The Floor, Violence Towards Staff, DAILY MAIL
(May 1, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/mr3y6b5p.
16 Miller, supra note 15.
17 Stephen Council, Downtown San Francisco is Losing a Bunch
of tech Conferences, Report Says, SFGATE (Feb. 5, 2024),
http://tinyurl.com/56avme3b.
18 Roland Li, S.F.’s Hotel Pain Could Spread as More than 30
Owners Face Mortgages Deadlines, S.F. CHRONICLE (Jun. 7,
2023), http://tinyurl.com/4cejpj25; Sam Whiting, S.F.’s Historic
Huntington Hotel Has Been Sold, S.F. CHRONICLE (Mar. 20,
2023), https://tinyurl.com/mrar2b5r; Sam Mauhay-Moore, S.F.
Micro-Hotel Yotel Acquired for $62M in Foreclosure Auction, S.F.
GATE (Oct. 13, 2022), http://tinyurl.com/3ubb3b5e.
12
replace the store’s backdoor after it was corroded by
urine.19 The owners of multiple stores have been attacked by homeless people near their businesses, including one person who was beaten after asking a
man to stop urinating in the street. 20 A neighborhood
bike shop recently announced that it made the “tough
decision to close” after “repeated break-in attempts
over the last year, and more broken windows than we
can count.” 21 The owners of a dog daycare center are
facing the same choice because “homeless people are
leaving needles and feces on their front door” and
“threatening people as they walk in.” 22 One owner of
a restaurant impacted by the proliferation of homeless encampments along the popular Van Ness Avenue has “described people routinely defecating on the
sidewalk and sometimes coming into his restaurant
yelling and throwing items during lunchtime” and
has complained that “the city’s inability to respond to
filth and criminal activity has deterred customers,
19 William Cole, San Francisco Grocery Store Owner Considers
Closing His Store After Being Bitten by a Homeless Person for the
Second Time in Four Months, DAILY MAIL (Sept. 11, 2019),
http://tinyurl.com/34rj5k3v.
20 Candy Store Owner, Employee and Customer Attacked at San
Francisco
Store,
KTVU
(Sept.
28,
2023),
http://tinyurl.com/yc7ejnf8; Patrick Reilly, San Francisco Shop
Owner Slugged in the Face After Asking Man to Stop Urinating
in Street, NY POST (Jul. 22, 2023), http://tinyurl.com/yc2xmvyx.
21 Katy Grimes, San Francisco Collapse: More Store Closures,
Lawlessness, Drugs, Homeless, CAL. GLOBE (May 11, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/2z7v5fn8.
Justine Waldman, SF Business Owners Concerned About
Homeless
Near
Store,
KRON4
(May
23,
2023),
https://tinyurl.com/4dx6czj7.
22
13
prompting him to consider taking legal action or leaving the city entirely.” 23 Countless other closures have
deprived communities of needed commerce and workers of their livelihoods. One retailer spoke for many
when it recently took out a full-page newspaper ad admonishing the City for “allowing the homeless to occupy our sidewalks, to openly distribute and use illegal drugs, to harass the public[,] and to defile the
city’s streets.” 24
B.
San Francisco’s Attempts To Address Its
Homelessness Crisis Have Been Undermined By The Ninth Circuit
As the homelessness crisis has escalated, San
Francisco residents have responded. They have supported massive public expenditures—$672 million
last year alone—to expand shelter capacity, fund new
public housing, and provide direct financial assistance to the homeless. 25 They have provided commonsense legal tools for City officials to use in addressing
homelessness, such as a public ordinance adopted by
referendum in 2016 that makes it “unlawful to place
an [e]ncampment upon a public sidewalk.” 26 They
have urged City officials to enforce that and other
David Sjostedt, San Francisco homeless encampments:
Tensions boil over on one of city’s busiest streets, S.F. STANDARD
(Oct. 20, 2023), http://tinyurl.com/mt2rj9eu.
23
24 Isabel Keane, Luxury San Francisco store may close after 166
years due to ‘litany of destructive’ policies making the city
‘unlivable’,
N.Y.
POST
(Aug.
16,
2023),
https://tinyurl.com/5n7ctk5v.
25 Coalition, 5-ER-1040–1042.
26 S.F., Cal., Police Code § 169(c).
14
laws to reclaim public spaces for the whole community. And when officials have refused, residents have
replaced them at the ballot box.27
After delaying for far too long, San Francisco’s
leaders started to address the problem. Using the
2016 encampment ordinance and other public safety
laws that prohibit camping or sleeping in public
places, the City began cleaning up several homeless
encampments per week.28 Before cleaning up any encampment, City personnel offer a range of services to
those affected, including assisting homeless people in
finding shelter.29 After encampments are cleared and
public access restored, the City retains any belongings collected for return to homeless people who left
them behind. 30
Just as those efforts started to yield progress,
however, the Ninth Circuit’s decisions have emerged
as a new obstacle. In Martin, the Ninth Circuit held
that a city’s enforcement of laws prohibiting public
sleeping and camping against “involuntarily” homeless people—a term that the decision does not define—violates the Eighth Amendment. 920 F.3d at
617. The court expanded that holding in the decision
below, allowing a class action and permitting an injunction based on even civil enforcement. See Pet.
See, e.g., San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin
Recalled, 136 HARV. L. REV. 1740, 1741–43 & n.12 (2023).
27
28 Coalition, 5-ER-1052.
29 Id.
30 Id.at 1066.
15
App. 135a–136a (statement of Graber, J., respecting
the denial of rehearing en banc).
Predictably, a wave of similar suits has followed
against cities throughout the West, and beyond.31 See
Appendix B, infra (compiling list of suits). One of
those suits was filed by the Coalition on Homelessness, seeking to enjoin San Francisco from enforcing
similar laws. It succeeded. Relying on Martin and
the panel decision in this case, a district court granted
a sweeping preliminary injunction that prohibits San
Francisco from enforcing or threatening to enforce
against anyone deemed “involuntarily” homeless a
host of provisions, including the 2016 encampment ordinance, a 2010 ordinance enacted by referendum
that prohibits sitting or lying on public sidewalks during the daytime, and three sections of the California
Penal Code that prohibit occupying or obstructing
public property.32
In addition to sparking a flurry of lawsuits, the legal
uncertainty stemming from Martin has led at least one city
outside the Ninth Circuit to voluntarily cease enforcement of its
anti-camping ordinances. Following Martin, the City Council of
Austin, Texas repealed the city’s ban on homeless encampments
in 2019. Philip Jankowski, U.S. Supreme Court Lets Stand
Ruling That Was Backbone of Austin’s Camping Ban Repeal,
AUSTIN
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
(Dec.
16,
2019),
http://tinyurl.com/y2fz5nd2 (citing Martin as “influential” in the
City Council’s decision). Two years later, however, Austin voters
voted decisively to reverse the city council and reinstate the ban.
Ryan Autullo, Austin Voters Choose to Bring Back Homeless
Camping Ban, AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN (May 1, 2021),
http://tinyurl.com/mjmw56ad (noting that voters voted to
reinstate the ban by a 15 percent margin). Sadly, San Francisco
voters have no such recourse.
31
32 Coalition, 2022 WL 17905114 at *7.
16
San Francisco appealed from the grant of the injunction, primarily arguing that the district court
adopted too broad a reading of “involuntary” homelessness.33 Though the Ninth Circuit acknowledged
that the district court failed to clearly state that the
injunction applied only to those who would be considered “involuntarily” homeless under circuit precedent, the court remanded to give the district court an
opportunity to “clarify” its language while leaving the
injunction in place. 34
As a result, San Francisco’s efforts to address
homeless encampments have been sharply curtailed.
Predictably, the constraints imposed by the injunction have reversed the progress that the City was
making and fueled the crisis described above. To take
just one recent example, City officials were unable to
remove a homeless encampment in the Tenderloin
neighborhood even after a fire that started in the encampment burned down a community laundromat
and endangered a large apartment building full of
tenants.35 Residents sought police help given that the
“fires started right underneath [their] house,” but lamented that “[t]he police do nothing because they say
the injunction prevents them from clearing that
camp.” 36 The injunction exacerbates the problem in
33 Coalition, ECF 11, 51, 54, 57, 68.
34 Coal. on Homelessness v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No.
23-15087, 2024 WL 125340, at *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2024).
35 Wilson Walker, Homeless Encampment Sweeps Are Just One
Aspect of a System Not Working for SF Residents, CBS NEWS BAY
AREA (Aug. 23, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/3x6ebw9v.
36 Id.
17
other ways as well; it allows criminals to turn encampments into safe havens for drug dealing, prostitution, and other forms of illicit conduct under the
guise of being “involuntarily homeless.” Moreover,
the injunction harms some of San Francisco’s most
vulnerable citizens: those with disabilities. The injunction has prohibited the enforcement of laws that
“permit San Francisco police officers to make an arrest when a person or the person’s belongings ‘obstruct[a] passageway such that a person using a
wheelchair would be unable to pass.’” 37
Under the Ninth Circuit’s rulings, San Francisco
and other cities have been barred by federal courts
from enforcing state and local laws to address “the defining public health and safety crisis in the Western
United States.” Pet. App. 138a (M. Smith, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc). The results
will be felt “not merely by cities, but block by block,
building by building, doorway by doorway,” where
residents and businesses are having their lives endangered and livelihoods destroyed. Id. at 161a
(Bress, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en
banc).
This disturbing reality has not gone unnoticed by
state and local policymakers, who have pleaded for
help from this Court to save San Francisco, including
by filing amicus briefs in this case.38
Coal. on Homelessness, 90 F.4th at 997 (Bumatay, J.,
dissenting) (quoting S.F. Police Dep’t Bull. A-19-080 (Apr. 16,
2019)).
37
See, e.g., Brief for California Governor Gavin Newsom as
Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner 10–11 (filed Sept. 22,
38
18
II. The Ninth Circuit’s Decision Is Wrong
It would be one thing if the burdens imposed by
the Ninth Circuit were required by the Constitution;
amici cherish the protections of the Bill of Rights and
recognize that enforcing those safeguards sometimes
has costs. But as petitioner and the dissenting judges
in this case, Martin, and Coalition explain in detail,
the Ninth Circuit’s decisions have no basis in the
Eighth Amendment as written, originally understood,
or interpreted by this Court.
A.
The Eighth Amendment Does Not Prohibit State Or Local Governments From
Punishing Proscribed Conduct
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of
“cruel and unusual punishments.” By its terms, that
Clause “expresses a substantive constraint on the
kinds of punishments governments may ‘inflict.’”
Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 488 (2023) (alteration
omitted). It “proscribes … barbarous and out-of-use
punishments” but does not address the scope of what
governments may criminally or civilly prohibit. Coal.
2023) (discussing the “affirmative[] harm[]” Martin has caused
San Francisco’s efforts to improve); Brief for Amici Curiae City
and County of San Francisco and Mayor Breed in Support of
Petitioner (filed Sept. 22, 2023); Jeremy B. White, Newsom
Urges SCOTUS to Consider Encampment Ruling That Has
‘Paralyzed’ California Cities, POLITICO (Sept. 22, 2023),
http://tinyurl.com/rpcf9fud (quoting California Gov. Gavin
Newsom as saying of the Ninth Circuit’s jurisprudence, “I hope
this goes to the Supreme Court, and that’s a hell of a statement
for a progressive Democrat . . . . It’s gone too far. People’s lives
are at risk.”).
19
on Homelessness, 90 F.4th at 991 (Bumatay, J., dissenting).
That reading of the Eighth Amendment’s text reflects its history and original understanding. The
Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause “has always
been considered, and properly so, to be directed at the
method or kind of punishment imposed for the violation of criminal statutes.” Ingraham v. Wright, 430
U.S. 651, 667 (1977) (emphasis added). “There is
simply no indication in the history of the Eighth
Amendment that [it] was intended to reach the substantive authority of Congress” or state and local governments to determine the scope of criminal or civil
prohibitions. Martin, 920 F.3d at 602 (Bennett, J.,
dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc).
This Court has applied the Eighth Amendment to
the substantive scope of criminal prohibitions in just
one narrow context. In Robinson v. California, 370
U.S. 660 (1962), the Court held that the Cruel and
Unusual Punishments Clause barred enforcement of
a state statute that made it a misdemeanor for a person “to be addicted to the use of narcotics.” Id. at 660
n.1, 666–67. The Court emphasized that a neighboring provision of the same statute that prohibited the
“use” of narcotics was permissible. Id. at 664. In
short, the Court held that the Eighth Amendment
prohibits criminalizing status but permits criminalizing conduct. Id. at 666–68.
That distinction was reiterated in Powell v. Texas,
392 U.S. 514 (1968), which involved a state law prohibiting public intoxication. The plurality opinion explained that the statute did “not fall within th[e] hold-
20
ing” of Robinson, because the defendant “was convicted, not for being a chronic alcoholic, but for being
in public while drunk on a particular occasion.” Id. at
532. Accordingly, Texas had “not sought to punish a
mere status, as California did in Robinson.” Id. Rather, it had “imposed upon [the defendant] a criminal
sanction for public behavior which may create substantial health and safety hazards, both for [him] and
for members of the general public, and which offends
the moral and esthetic sensibilities of a large segment
of the community.” Id. That was “a far cry from convicting one for being an addict.” Id. at 532.
In the ensuing decades, this Court has “never wavered from the decision in Robinson and the statusact distinction that it articulated.” Manning v. Caldwell, 930 F.3d 264, 288 (4th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (Wilkinson, J., dissenting). That does not mean that voluntariness has no place in determining liability. The
“centuries-long” criminal-law requirement of a voluntary act, along with familiar defenses like necessity
and duress, protect against the misapplication of responsibility for conduct that a person cannot avoid.
Powell, 392 U.S. at 535–36 (plurality opinion). Critically, however, definition of those requirements and
defenses is “the province of the States” and Congress,
not federal courts. Id. at 536; see, e.g., William J.
Stuntz & Joseph L. Hoffman, DEFINING CRIMES 53
(2011) (“[I]nsofar as the principle of voluntariness is
respected, it is respected by the terms of state and federal criminal statutes, not federal constitutional
law.”).
21
B.
The Ninth Circuit Badly Misinterpreted
the Eighth Amendment
The Ninth Circuit’s holdings in this case and Martin defy those well-established constitutional principles. The decisions do not even attempt to establish
that the text or original meaning of the Eighth
Amendment forecloses the enforcement of laws
against sleeping in, camping in, or otherwise obstructing access to public spaces. Nor do the decisions
suggest that the state and local laws at issue expressly criminalize status in the way that the law in
Robinson did; to the contrary, the panel here recognized that the laws “prohibit [respondents] from engaging in activity.” Pet. App. 46a (emphasis added).
The Ninth Circuit’s decisions instead rest on the
proposition that the Eighth Amendment prohibits
criminalization of “conduct that is involuntary or the
product of a ‘status.’” Pet. App. 47a (quoting Martin,
920 F.3d at 617). But that reasoning collapses the
status/conduct distinction that this Court articulated
in Robinson and has adhered to ever since. By the
Ninth Circuit’s logic, statutes prohibiting the use of
narcotics would violate the Eighth Amendment if the
user’s conduct was “the product of” an addiction. Id.
But this Court rejected precisely that line of argument in Robinson, see 370 U.S. at 664, and has never
accepted it since.
The Ninth Circuit purported to draw support for its
position from Justice White’s opinion concurring in
the judgment in Powell, along with the dissents in
that case. See Martin, 920 F.3d at 616. But that approach represents a “startling misapplication of” this
Court’s rules on interpreting its own decisions. Pet.
22
App. 125a (statement of O’Scannlain, J.). As noted,
the result of Powell was to reject the argument that
Texas’s public-intoxication statute was invalid because it punished conduct resulting from addiction.
There is no valid way to get from that decision to the
Ninth Circuit’s position that Powell supports invalidating the laws at issue here. See id. at 125a–128a.
With no foundation in the Eighth Amendment, the
Ninth Circuit’s holding effectively amounts to recognition of an unenumerated constitutional right to
sleep and camp on public property in at least some
circumstances. But “[u]nder well-settled precedent,”
such a right may be recognized only if it is so “rooted
in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be
ranked as fundamental.” Kahler v. Kansas, 140 S. Ct.
1021, 1027 (2020). The Ninth Circuit did not attempt
to show that the right it recognized meets that standard, and no such showing is possible. After all, “[l]aws
prohibiting loitering and vagrancy have been a fixture
of Anglo–American law at least since the time of the
Norman Conquest.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527
U.S. 41, 103 (1999) (Thomas, J., dissenting). And, as
demonstrated by the wave of litigation in the wake of
Martin, such laws remain highly prevalent today.
The Ninth Circuit’s position also lacks any meaningful limiting principle. The court’s rationale in
Martin was that constitutional protection extends to
“acts or conditions [that] are universal and unavoidable consequences of being human,” on the basis that
“any conduct” arising from such conditions “is involuntary and inseparable from status.” 920 F.3d at
616–17. The court has applied that principle to strike
down laws prohibiting public sleeping because “human beings are biologically compelled to rest.” Id.; see
23
Pet. App. 46a–48a. But the logic of the Ninth Circuit’s
position hardly stops there. Indeed, as Judge Bumatay observed, the panel majority in Coalition upheld
a preliminary injunction on the enforcement of laws
“forbidding lying on the sidewalk at certain hours,
preventing camping or erecting structures, and banning the obstruction of parks, squares, streets, and
highways.” Coal. on Homelessness, 90 F.4th at 999
(Bumatay, J., dissenting). The enjoined laws were intended to “restrict activities in certain ways, at certain times, and in certain places,” rather than simply
prohibiting the act of public sleeping. Id.
The biologically compelled consequences of being
human extend beyond sleeping to include, for example, expelling bodily waste. “By holding that the
Eighth Amendment proscribes the criminalization of
involuntary conduct,” the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning
thus seems to “inevitably result in the striking down
of laws that prohibit public defecation and urination.”
Martin, 920 F.3d at 596 (M. Smith, J., dissenting from
the denial of rehearing en banc).
The reasoning can be extended even further. If
cooking food with open flames and campfires is in service of biologically compelled needs, such conduct
might also fall within the Ninth Circuit’s rationale.
Use of drugs in public by a person with a biologically
rooted addiction might too. See, e.g., Manning, 930
F.3d at 292–93 (Wilkinson, J., dissenting) (discussing
the “staggering” consequences of discarding the status/conduct distinction, including possible invalidation of laws prohibiting child molestation and domestic violence against offenders who have addictions).
24
Nor is Martin’s rationale logically limited to sleeping or camping in outdoor spaces such as public parks
and sidewalks. The same reasoning seemingly could
justify a right of involuntarily homeless individuals to
sleep or camp in public buildings. Indeed, Martin
held that Boise could not issue citations for “sleeping
in a public restroom.” Martin, 920 F.3d at 618.
The breadth of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning confirms its error. As Justice Marshall’s plurality opinion in Powell stressed, the Court’s holding in Robinson reaches “but a very small way into the substantive
criminal law.” 392 U.S. at 533. “[U]nless Robinson is
so viewed it is difficult to see any limiting principle
that would serve to prevent this Court from becoming,
under the aegis of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Clause, the ultimate arbiter of the standards of criminal responsibility, in diverse areas of the criminal
law, throughout the country.” Id. The Ninth Circuit’s
position leads to precisely that impermissible result.
C.
The Ninth Circuit’s Decisions Undermine Core Principles of Federalism and
Judicial Restraint
The Ninth Circuit not only misreads the Constitution; it does so in a way that undermines core principles of federalism and judicial restraint. “Under our
federal system, state and local leaders—not distant
federal judges—are primarily entrusted with the
power and duty to protect the common welfare of our
towns, cities, and neighborhoods, and to ensure that
our streets, squares, and sidewalks remain clean and
safe.” Pet. App. 133a (statement of O’Scannlain, J.).
The basis for state and local “legislative responsibility
25
over criminal law is fundamental: the criminal law exists to protect the safety of citizens, and ensuring the
safety of the people is one of those things that popular
government exists to do.” Manning, 930 F.3d at 297
(Wilkinson, J., dissenting); see Roberts v. Louisiana,
431 U.S. 633, 646 (1977) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)
(“[T]he State has an interest in protecting its citizens … this surely is at the core of the Lockean ‘social
contract’ idea.”).
By prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments,
the Eighth Amendment expressly recognizes the primacy of legislative judgments and the “essential considerations of federalism.” Powell, 392 U.S. at 535
(plurality opinion); see Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153,
175 (1976) (“[T]he constitutional test is intertwined
with an assessment of contemporary standards and
the legislative judgment weighs heavily in ascertaining such standards.”); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S.
407, 462 (2008) (Alito, J., dissenting) (“Our cases have
cautioned against using the aegis of the Cruel and
Unusual Punishment Clause to cut off the normal
democratic processes.” (internal quotation omitted)).
Thus, “in assessing a punishment selected by a democratically elected legislature against” an Eighth
Amendment challenge, “a heavy burden rests on
those who would attack the judgment of the representatives of the people.” Gregg, 428 U.S. at 175.
Given those constitutional principles, courts
should take care to avoid “significantly limit[ing] the
States in their efforts” to address “a widespread and
important social problem” such as homelessness “by
announcing a revolutionary doctrine of constitutional
law that would also tightly restrict state power to deal
with a wide variety of other harmful conduct.” Powell,
26
392 U.S. at 537 (Black, J. concurring).39 “Diversity …
is the very raison d’être of our federal system,” and
the Eighth Amendment should not be understood to
“disabl[e] the States from … responding to changed
social conditions.” Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S.
957, 990 (1991) (opinion of Scalia, J.). Rather, “in the
face of [] uncertainty, … courts should pay particular
deference to reasonable legislative judgments.” Jones
v. United States, 463 U.S. 354, 365 n.13 (1983).
The Ninth Circuit squarely defied those admonitions in Martin, Coalition, and this case. In all three
cases, panels of three federal appellate judges countermanded the judgments of local officials who are entrusted by voters to make policy decisions and who experience the effects of the homelessness crisis in their
communities every day. As Judge O’Scannlain aptly
observed, “[i]t is easy enough for [judges], behind marble walls and sealed doors, to dismiss the consequences of our decisions.” Pet. App. 132a. “But for
those who call these communities home—who must
live by the criminal violence, narcotics activity, and
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit’s position contradicts the California
Supreme Court’s holding in Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 892 P.2d
1145 (1995). In Tobe, homeless residents of Santa Ana sought to
enjoin enforcement of that city’s ordinances barring camping on
public streets, arguing that it was impermissible punishment of
the involuntary status of being homeless. Id. at 1166. The
California Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument,
holding that Robinson and Powell “ma[ke] clear … that
punishing the conduct of using or possessing narcotics, even by
an addict, is not impermissible punishment for status” and that
“the Supreme Court has not held that the Eighth Amendment
prohibits punishment of acts derivative of a person’s status.” Id.
39
27
dangerous diseases that plague the homeless encampments buttressed by our decisions—the consequences
of our judicial arrogation are harder to accept.” Id.
Indeed, while the Ninth Circuit’s decisions
sharply constrain the ability of state and local governments to protect their communities, the federal government has been able to cope so far with the effects
of the San Francisco crisis by spending millions of dollars on “improvements” to the area outside of the San
Francisco Federal Building, including a “galvanized
steel fence to keep the plaza free of drug users and the
unhoused.” 40 The federal government has also allowed its employees stationed in downtown San Francisco to work from home.41
Of course, most residents and businesses in San
Francisco are not able to escape the problem so easily.
For that reason, too, “[i]t is hard to imagine a jurisprudence that combines so little regard for the sacred
words of the Constitution, with so much disregard for
the state and local authorities that our constitutional
system entrusts as the primary protectors of the
health, safety, and welfare of our communities.” Pet.
App. 133a (statement of O’Scannlain, J.).
Lyanna Melendez, Some Federal Employees in SF Asked to
Work From Home Amid Drug, Crime Concerns: Report, ABC 7
NEWS (Aug. 14, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/bdew9zdk.
40
41 See Megan Cassidy, Crime Is So Bad Near S.F. Federal Build-
ing Employees Are Told to Work From Home, Officials Said,
S.F. CHRON. (Aug. 11, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/58xdxcdu; Jonah Lamb, Bloody Sidewalks, Knife Attacks and a Corpse: What
Workers Face Outside San Francisco Federal Building, S.F.
STANDARD (Sept. 8, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/9a7t9xfm.
28
Amici accordingly urge the Court to reverse the
decision below which has had profound negative effects on residents, businesses, workers, and others in
San Francisco and similar cities throughout the West.
CONCLUSION
The Court should reverse the decision below.
Respectfully submitted.
CHRISTOPHER G. MICHEL
TERRENCE L. GEORGE
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART Counsel of Record
RACHEL G. FRANK
& SULLIVAN, LLP
MICHAEL SEBRING
191 N. Wacker Drive
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
Suite 2700
& SULLIVAN, LLP
Chicago, IL 60606
1300 I Street, N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 538-8308
christophermichel@
quinnemanuel.com
Counsel for Amici Curiae
March 4, 2024
APPENDIX
1a
APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPENDIX A
List of Amici Curiae ........................................ 2a
APPENDIX B
Lawsuits Filed Under Martin v. City of
Boise and Johnson v. Grants Pass ............... 15a
2a
APPENDIX A
List of Amici Curiae
Business Owners, Executives, and Companies
Aisling Ferguson (Business Owner)
Alex Rosen (Managing Partner, Ridge Ventures)
Alexander R. Mehran (Chairman, Sunset
Development Company)
Alexander Rosen (Managing Partner, Ridge
Ventures)
Alicia Strzodka (Property Owner)
Amy Devereux (Owner, Amy Design)
Anqi Zhang (CEO, Bidirectional Energy)
Arthur Patterson (Founder, Accel Partners)
Barbara J. Dwyer (Owner, Dolores Park Properties)
Bill Fisher (Founder, Manzanita Capital)
Bill Poland (Founder and Principal, Bay West
Group)
Brian Mullin (Co-Founder and Executive Creative
Director, Manifold)
Carole McNeil (Owner and Chairman, McNeil
Capital, LLC)
Carrie Pomerantz (Business Leader)
Christopher J. Ewers (Managing Director, Marsh
Risk & Insurance Services)
Cyris Sanandaji (Founder and Managing Principal,
Presidio Bay Ventures)
Dana M. Emery (Chair and CEO, Dodge & Cox)
Danny Conway (Managing Partner, Niche Capital)
David Butler (Owner, Butler Cues)
David Rogers (Owner, ConvertClick Digital
Analytics)
David Sage (Small Business Owner)
David Zhang (Business Executive)
3a
Diane Morris (Chairman, Morris Capital
Management)
Ditka Reiner (Woman Owned Small Business
Executive)
Don Papa (President, OTA)
Doug Biederbeck (Owner, Bix Restaurant and Florio
Restaurant)
Douglas J. Durkin (President, Douglas Durkin
Design, Inc.)
Douglas Wolf (Managing Director, PCG Equity, Inc.)
Dr. Michael Waclawiczek (Retired Senior Software
Executive)
Eduardo Sagues (Head of Development, March
Capital Management)
Elizabeth Everdell (Principle and CEO, Everdell
Garden Design)
Elliot Scharge (Founder, Ad Hoc Ventures LLC)
Gary Shansby (Former CEO, San Francisco based
Company)
Hamid Moghadam (Co-Founder, CEO & Chairman
of Prologis)
Hendy Dayton (Small Business Owner)
Hugh Scott (Executive Managing Director, Jones
Lang LaSalle)
Jackie Safier (President, Helen Diller Foundation)
James Mann (Senior Vice President, UBS)
James Sangiacomo (Principal, Trinity Properties)
Jay Jeffers (CEO and Owner, Jay Jeffers, Inc.)
Jean-Pierre L.Conte (Chairman and Managing
Partner, Genstar Capital, L.P.)
Jeff Jurow (Business Owner and Member, Marina
Community Association)
John Adair (Managing Partner, Glencrest Group)
4a
John Bryant (CEO, Building Owners and Managers
Association San Francisco)
John Philip Coghlan (Chairman, Life360)
John Pritzker (Geolo Capita)
Jon Dayton (Managing Director, Alex Brown)
Justin Hughes (Founder, Phase 2 Partners)
Kabir Seth (COO, Presidio Bay Ventures)
Katherine August DeWilde (Independent Corporate
Board Member and C-Suite Executive)
Katherine Stiggelbout (Owner, In Flow)
Kevin Russell (CEO, Centric Construction, Inc.)
Kristi Major (Owner, KristiFit)
Lee Wittlinger (Business Leader)
Lucy Junus (Founder, Lucy Junus Interior Design)
Luis A. Belmonte (Co-CEO, Seven Hills Properties)
Margaret Liu Collins (CEO and Founder, Liu
International Management LLC and Gig Media
LLC)
March Capital Management
Mark Conroe (Managing Partner, Presidio
Development Partners LLC)
Mark Lerdal (President, Global X Digital)
Mark Sugarman (President, Banks & Sugarman)
Matt Aljets (President, MDA Brokerage Corp)
Matt Brewer (Owner, Back Home Hospitality)
Matthew Stern (Managing Partner of Deca
Companies)
Matthew C. Sheridan (Business Owner)
Matthew Zitzmann (CEO, Garage AI, Inc.)
Max Rhodes (CEO, Faire)
Megumi Mansfield (Director of Revenue Operations,
Resilience)
Michael Covarrubias (TMG Partners)
Michael Green (CEO, Virtu Investments)
5a
Mike Cagney (Founder and CEO, Figure
Technologies)
Mike Lin (Founder, Punk Rock Camp)
Ned Segal (Technology Executive and Board
Director)
Oz Erickson (Chairman, Emerald Fund, Inc.)
Peter Dwares (President, Dwares Groupfeduar)
Peter Reinhardt (CEO and Co-founder, Charm
Industrial)
Peter Yorke (CEO, Voyomotive, LLC)
Phil West (Managing Member, Second Label LLC
d/b/a The Beehive)
Richard J. Leider (Paramount Hotels Inc)
Richard M. Kovacevich (Retired Chairman and CEO
Wells Fargo & Co.)
Richard R. Nuñez, Jr. (Vice President, Business
Development and Alliances)
Richard Selsted (Director, Oryn Therapeutics, Inc.)
Rob Giljum (Owner, The Edge, Midnight Sun and
Beaux)
Robert Cohn (Managing Partner, Wellington
Management and Consulting, LLC)
Robert Emmons (Owner, San Francisco Mercantile)
Robert Tillman (CEO, RRT Partners, LLC)
Robert Whitworth (Business Owner)
Rod Diehl (Senior Vice President, Co-Head of West
Coast Regions, BXP)
Ron Conway (Founder, SV Angel)
Ruchi Sanghvi (Founder and General Partner, South
Park Commons)
Russell Notides (Former CFO, Rapt, Inc.)
Sharad Singh (CEO, Trivium, Inc. and Trivium
Insurance Services, Inc.)
Sigmund Anderman (Founder, Ellie Mae, Inc.)
6a
Stephen Rechif (Business Owner)
Stephen Williamson (Founder and CEO, Forager
Project)
Steve Fukuda (Business Owner)
Steven Merrill (President, Merrill Family
Foundation)
Theresa Sabella (Managing Member, Sabella
Building LLC)
Thomas F. White (President and CEO, TriAct
Therapeutics, Inc.)
Timothy F. Marks (Managing Principal, Tucker &
Marks)
Todd Solmson (Managing Partner, Fairwood Capital,
LLC)
Tommaso Trionfi (Owner, Shared Studios)
Tracey Sylvester (Owner EHS Pilates)
Tracy Evans MD, MPH, FAAD (CEO, Precision
Dermatology, Inc.)
Vince Hoenigman (Vice President, Citymark
Development)
Vishal Saluja (Managing Partner, Indico Capital)
Wes Powell (Executive Managing Director, JLL)
William Clerico (Managing Partner, Convective
Capital)
William Minshew (CEO, Splits)
Yitong Zhang (Co-founder, Agora)
Community and Civic Leaders
Abram Dawson (Community Leader)
Aditya Agarwal (Community Builder, South Park
Commons)
Alejandro Araiz (National Account Manager for
Hotel Engine)
Amanda Hoenigman (Civic Leader)
7a
Ambassador Trevor D. Traina (Retired U.S.
Ambassador to the Republic of Austria)
Amy Winthrop (Community Activist)
Angie Yap (Community Leader)
Anna Sangiacomo Kane (Principal, Trinity
Properties)
Anna Waclawiczek (Community Leader)
Ayman Farahat (President, Friends and Neighbors
of Jose Coronado Playground)
Barbara Pletz (Community Leader)
Barry Altshuler, (EVP Investments, Equity
Residential)
Barry Baron, M.D. (Community Leader)
Barry Reder (Retired Law Firm Partner)
Blase Bova (Executive Director, St. Vincent de Paul
Alameda County)
Brian Hill (Board Member, Castro Community on
Patrol)
Cedric Akbar (Community Advocate)
Chief Gregory Suhr (San Francisco Police
Department (retired))
Christine Bartlett Hinckley (Real Estate Broker,
Grandmother)
Claudia L. Siegel (Realtor CRS)
Connie Cox Price (Artist and Community Organizer)
Daman Kapoor (President, 856-858 Capp HOA)
David Crane (President, Govern for California)
David DeWilde (Community Leader)
Dean Copans (Principal, Spruce Commercial Real
Estate)
Denis F. Shanagher (Partner, Duane Morris LLP –
Native San Franciscan)
Desmond Morgan (Secretary, Castro Merchant
Association, San Francisco)
8a
Diana Helander (Board, Hamilton HOA, Community
Leader - OFarrell Neighborhood Group)
Dina DiBattista (Business Strategy & Marketing
Consultant)
Donald Van de Mark (Real Estate Agent)
Donna Miller Casey (Non-Profit/Business
Consultant)
Doug Mehl (AIA, Principal)
Dr Richard Garcia-Kennedy (Community Leader)
Dr. Mark Co (Foot and Ankle Physician/Surgeon)
Elissa Meryl (Phycologist, Neighborhood Leader)
Elizabeth Capdevielle Dressel (Lawyer)
Erika Slovikoski (CPDT-KA, Community Leader)
Forrest Liu (Stop Asian Hate activist)
Frank Tizedes (Community Leader)
Gary Pinkus (Community Leader)
Glen Hookey, MD (Emergency Room Doctor)
Gregg Lynn (Market Share-Leader Realtor in San
Francisco)
Henry Karnilowicz (President, South of Market
Business Association)
Jade Tu (Community Organizer)
James Reuben (Partner, Reuben, Junius, & Rose)
Jane Day (Harriet Street Advocates)
Janice Thacher (Partner, Wilson Meany)
Jeannette Harriss (Financial Advisor- Morgan
Stanley LLC)
Jeff Schlarb (Principal, Jeff Schlarb Design Studio)
Jeremy Liew (Partner, Lightspeed Venture
Partners)
Jim Shapiro (Community Leader)
Joe Camarda (Community Leader)
John Debenedetti (Chair of the Board, All May See
Foundation)
9a
John Hooper (Buena Vista Neighborhood Association
Member)
John Kuehne (Security Committee Member,
Gateway Tenants Association)
Josel Salalima (Engineering Lead)
Judge Kevin V. Ryan (Ret.) (Former United States
Attorney for the NDCA)
Julia Baron, PsyD (Licensed Clinical Psychologist)
Karen Breslin (Former President of Miraloma Park
Improvement Club)
Karina Velasquez (Principal, Law Office of Karina
Velasquez)
Kate Smith (President, Saint Francis Foundation)
Kerry Egan (Act Two Holdings)
Kerry Riordan Sykes (San Francisco Attorney)
Kevin Delmore (Sotheby’s International Realty San
Francisco Brokerage)
Kevin Miller (Physician)
Kris Iversen (Executive Assistant, Author, and 3rd
Generation San Franciscan)
Kristina Cahojova (Community Leader)
Kwabena Agyeman (Community Leader)
Kyle Olivo (SOMA Grand Community Leader)
Lily A. Sage (Real Estate Investor)
Lily Ho (President, Delta Chinatown Initiative)
Louise Muhlfeld Patterson (Community Leader)
Luke Perkocha (Community Leader)
Madeleine Trembley (President, Gateway Tenants
Association)
Madeline Duva (Board Member, Advisor and Mentor
to various technology companies)
Madeline Mandanis (Associate, CBRE)
Margaret Latif (Community Leader)
10a
Maria Pasos-Nunez (Strategic Management
Consultant, Beeline Partners)
Mark Lehmann (Community Leader)
Mark W. Perry (Retired NEA General Partner)
Mary Conde (Board of Directors, Civic Center
Community Benefit District)
Mary Jung (Past Chair, San Francisco Democratic
Party)
Mary Vascellaro (Community Volunteer in
Education)
Mauree Jane Perry (Retired Oral Historian)
Meet Aghera (Gateway Tenants Association)
Melanie Born (Coordinator of Client Services in a
Tenderloin based non-profit)
Melanie Mandich (Community Leader and
Volunteer)
Melis Inceer (Community Leader)
Michael Bradley (Community Leader)
Michael Lai (Community Leader)
Michela Alioto-Pier (Former San Francisco
Supervisor)
Michele Hennessey (BCNA Board Member)
Nancy Montgomery (Non-Profit Board Trustee)
Naomi Richen (Board Member, Small Property
Owners of San Francisco)
Natalie Jamison (Community Leader)
Norma García-Kennedy (Community Leader)
Oleg Verbitski (SFAR Member and SF Resident.
Chair of GBC Committee)
Par Hanji (Partner, Hanji & McAllister Group)
Paulina Fayer (Executive Director, RecoverCA)
Peter Lee (Community Leader)
Peter Lewis (President, Mission Delores
Neighborhood Association)
11a
Ralph Hibbs (Castro Community Benefit District
Board Member and Treasurer, Member of Castro
Commons HOA Board)
Randi Fisher (Co-trustee Pisces Foundation)
Rebecca Bradley (Community Leader)
Rebecca Schumacher (Realtor)
Remi Tan (Architect)
Rick Chisholm (Nonprofit Board member)
Robert C. Gordon III (Former Career Assistant
District Attorney, City and County of San
Francisco)
Roberta Economidis (Partner, GE Law Group)
Stephen Martin-Pinto (Former President West, Twin
Peaks Central Council)
Steven McGlocklin (Physician)
Steven N. Fayne (Chairman of the Board, San
Francisco Campus for Jewish Living)
Theo Cincotta (Soma West Society)
Thomas Shanahan (Community Leader)
Tom Dehnel (Founder, Harrison Street Neighbors)
Topher Conway (SV Angel)
Vaughn de Guigne (Community Leader)
William Brega (Stop Asian Hate Activist)
William Stanley Andereck (Internist, Bioethicist)
Zoe Luhtala (Community Leader)
Neighborhood Leaders and Associations
Adam Baron
Alan Hopkins (District 6 Neighborhood Leader)
Alicia Strodzka
Ann Poletti
Ari Shp (Mission Neighborhood Safety Advocate)
Barbara Hill
Barry Kane
12a
Beau Lacey
Bette Sue Wadsworth
Bharath Kadaba
Bilques Smith
Brian Gannon
Brian Key
Bronagh Hanley
Brynne Levy
Carl M. Kawaja
Caroline Newman
Carolyn Mehran
Cassandra Palo
Christian Rieta
Christopher Nalen
Clyde Ikeda, MD
David Young
Derek Jackson
Devon Johnson (District 2 Neighborhood Leader)
Donald Graves
Donna Hurowitz
Ellanor Notides (Inner Richmond Neighborhood
Leader)
Francesca Pastine (President, Inner Mission
Neigborhood Association)
Gay-Lynn Blanding
George Cavage
Gia Granucci
Gina Cicciarelli
Glenn Risso
Helen Spalding
Holly Peterson
Jackie Miller
Jay Ernst
Jennifer Hymes Battat
13a
Joe Tham
John Gall
John Owl
John S. Wadsworth Jr.
Joi Pentin
Jordan Vennes
Joyce Ferman (Member Central Mission Neighborhood Association)
Kalpi Kadaba
Kathryn Ann Dougery
Kathryn Kimball
Lena Wong
Leslie Podell
Lisa Ikeda
Lucas Weissman
Luke deWilde
Lyle Sweeney
M.J. Thomas (Neighborhood Association Board
Member)
Marie N. Simpson
Mark Dietrich
Mark McHale
Martin Quinn
Mary Nadine Sangiacomo Kane
Maureen S. McFadden
Michael Jameson
Michelle Hughes
Mike Ruiz
Mithun Patel
Mission Dolores Neighborhood Association
Naomi Hofacket
Nathaniel Weiner
Nikhil Gowda
Nikhil Sachdev
14a
Noelle Moseley
P. Bailey Jamison
Patrick Kennedy
Paul Kontos
Paul Rea
Paul Sears
Paul V. Simpson
Peggy Mullin-Bogart
Philip Vy
Philipp Frings
Phyllis Goodman (Member of Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association)
Richard C. Barker
Richard Robinson (Harbor Affairs Neighborhood
Leader)
Richard Ruvalcaba
Robert C. Hood
Robert Sangiacomo Kane
Robert Vennes
Roberta L. Baron
Roger Williams
Sandra Ingrish
Stephen Diteljan (Tenderloin Neighborhood Leader)
Steven Matthews
Sue Graham Johnston
Susan A. Ford
Susan Lowe
Sybil Gordon
Tanguy Serra
Tim Seufert
Tracie Rosen
Tracie Rosen, Esq.
William D Evers Jr.
15a
APPENDIX B
Lawsuits Filed Under Martin v. City of Boise
and Johnson v. Grants Pass
Jewels Helping Hands v. Hansen, No. 23-2-03122-3
(Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2023)
Better Days Ahead Outreach Inc. v. Borough of
Pottstown, No. 2:23-cv-04234 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 1,
2023)
Tassey v. California Dep’t of Transp., No. 23-cv-05041
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2023)
Saalman, II v. County of Mercer, No. 3:23-cv-1538 (N.D.
Ohio Aug. 8, 2023)
Boyd v. City of San Rafael, No. 3:23-cv-04085 (N.D.
Cal. Aug 11, 2023)
Schwab v. City of Fremont, No. 3:23-cv-03037 (N.D.
Cal. Jun 21, 2023)
Community on Wheels v. City of Tucson, No. 4:23-cv00029 (D. Ariz. Jan. 17, 2023)
Fund for Empowerment v. City of Phoenix, No. 2:22cv-02041 (D. Ariz. Nov. 30, 2022)
Yesue v. City of Sebastopol, No. 4:22-cv-06474 (N.D.
Cal. Oct. 25, 2022)
Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San
Francisco, No. 4:22-cv-05502 (N.D. Cal. Sep 27,
2022)
Bacon v. City of Chula Vista, No. 22-cv-01278 (S.D.
Cal. Aug. 29, 2022)
Blaike v. El-Tawansy, No. 3:22-cv-04669 (N.D. Cal.
Aug 15, 2022)
16a
McCloud v. Cnty. of Sonoma, No. 3:22-cv-04284 (N.D.
Cal. July 25, 2022)
Balin v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., No. 3:22-cv-04178 (N.D.
Cal. July 18, 2022)
Blain v. California Dep’t of Transp., No. 3:22-cv04178 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2022)
Fitzpatrick v. Little, No. 1:22-cv-00162 (D. Idaho Apr.
12, 2022)
Brown v. City of Fresno, No. 1:22-cv-00216 (E.D. Cal.
Feb. 21, 2022)
Pajaro/Watsonville Homeless Union v. City Of
Watsonville, No. 3:21-cv-09778 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19,
2021)
Dominguez v. City of Berkeley, No. 3:21-cv-08599
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2021)
Boring v. Murillo, No. 2:21-cv-07305 (C.D. Cal. Sept.
13, 2021)
Evenson-Childs v. Ravalli County Sheriff's Office, No.
9:21-cv-00089 (D. Mont. Aug 09, 2021)
People of City of Los Angeles Who are Un-Housed v.
Garcetti, No. 21-cv-06003 (C.D. Cal. July 26, 2021)
Marin Cnty. Loc. of the Cal. Homeless Union v. City of
Novato, No. 21-cv-05401 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2021)
O’Callaghan v. City of Portland, No. 3:21-cv-00812 (D.
Or. May 25, 2021)
Warren v. City of Chico, No. 2:21-cv-00640 (E.D. Cal.
Apr. 8, 2021)
Geary v. City of Pacifica, No. 3:21-cv-01780 (N.D. Cal.
Mar. 15, 2021)
17a
Sausalito/Marin Cnty. Chapter of Cal. Homeless
Union v. City of Sausalito, No. 21-cv-01143 (N.D.
Cal. Feb. 16, 2021)
Niau v. County of Kauai, No. 1:20-cv-00319 (D. Haw.
Jul 20, 2020)
Jackson v. Gill, No. 6:20-cv-00906 (D. Or. Jun 05,
2020)
Winslow v. City of Oakland, No. 20-cv-01510 (N.D.
Cal. Feb. 28, 2020)
Mahoney v. City of Sacramento, No. 2:20-cv-00258
(E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2020)
Young v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:20-cv-00709 (C.D.
Cal. Jan 23, 2020)
Aitken v. City of Aberdeen, No. 3:19-cv-05322 (W.D.
Wash. Apr. 22, 2019)
Quintero v. City of Santa Cruz, No. 5:19-cv-01898
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2019)
Shipp v. Schaaf, No. 19-cv-01709 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2,
2019)
Le Van Hung v. Schaaf, No. 19-cv-01436 (N.D. Cal.
Mar. 19, 2019)
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.