Amicus Curiae Brief — City of Grants Pass, Oregon, Petitioner v. Gloria Johnson, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated

NO. 23-175

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

________________

CITY OF GRANTS PASS,

Petitioner,

v.

GLORIA JOHNSON AND JOHN LOGAN, ON

BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS

SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Respondents.

________________

On Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court of Appeals

For The Ninth Circuit

________________

BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE,

THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY

________________

Mira Hashmall

Counsel of Record

Nadia A. Sarkis

MILLER BARONDESS, LLP

2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2600

Los Angeles, California 90067

(310) 552-7560

mhashmall@millerbarondess.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae,

The County Of Los Angeles

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE............................. 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 4

ARGUMENT ................................................................ 7

I.

The

“Shelter

Availability”

Test

Disproportionately Prioritizes Interim

Measures Over Long-Term, Sustainable

Solutions To The Homelessness Crisis ............ 7

II.

Local Governments’ Ability To Maintain

The Public Right Of Way As A Safe,

Clean Space Positively Impacts The

Unhoused ........................................................ 12

CONCLUSION .......................................................... 16

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

FEDERAL CASES

Johnson v. City of Grants Pass,

72 F.4th 868 (9th Cir. 2023) .... 1, 3-7, 11, 12, 15

Martin v. City of Boise,

902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018)........................... 3

FEDERAL STATUTES

42 U.S.C. § 11302 ........................................................ 9

FEDERAL RULES

U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 37.6 .................................................... 1

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Chris Woodyard, Los Angeles County Seeks

Action from City on Toilets, Rats and

Trash to Combat Homeless Crisis, USA

Today, June, 8, 2019 ....................................... 14

Christina Villacorte, L.A. County Reports

Significant Progress in First Year of

Emergency Homeless Response (Feb. 13,

2024), http://tinyurl.com/muy8ccpb ................. 2

D. Srebnik, et al.: Impact of Supported

Housing Prioritization System Using

Vulnerability and High Service

Utilization, Journal of Social Distress

and the Homeless (May 2017),

http://tinyurl.com/bdz8arsm ........................... 11

iii

Doug Smith, et al., 24 Fires a Day: Surge in

Flames at L.A. Homeless Encampments

a Growing Crisis, L.A. Times, May 12,

2021 ................................................................. 12

Fesia A. Davenport, Homeless Initiative

Quarterly Report (Oct. 18, 2023),

http://tinyurl.com/35rbu4br .............................. 2

Jacob L. Wasserman, et al., The Road, Home:

Challenges of and Responses to

Homelessness in State Transportation

Environments, 21 ScienceDirect (Sept.

2023),

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar

ticle/pii/S2590198223001379 .......................... 14

L.A. City Controller report to City Council,

Piling up: Addressing L.A.’s Illegal

Dumping Problem (Mar. 24, 2021),

https://controller.lacity.gov/audits/illegal

dumping .......................................................... 13

L.A. County Homeless Initiative, Awardee

Orientation (Apr. 15, 2023 update),

http://tinyurl.com/ycxkes78 ............................ 10

L.A. County Homeless Initiative, By the

Numbers – L.A. County Homeless

Emergency Response (2023),

http://tinyurl.com/3sks6yx7 .............................. 2

L.A. County Homeless Initiative, Draft FY

2023-24 Funding Recommendations

(Dec. 8, 2022),

http://tinyurl.com/2wy2tcbm ............................ 8

iv

L.A. County Homeless Initiative, Homekey,

https://homeless.lacounty.gov/homekey/

(last visited Feb. 28, 2024) ............................... 8

L.A. County Homeless Initiative, Pathway

Home,

https://homeless.lacounty.gov/pathwayhome/ (last visited Feb. 28, 2024)..................... 5

L.A. County Homeless Initiative, Tiny Home

Village Opens In Torrance (July 6,

2022), http://tinyurl.com/4fw8sfrh ................... 7

L.A. Homeless Servs. Auth., 2023 Greater Los

Angeles Homeless Count (June 29,

2023), http://tinyurl.com/8h9a937w ................. 1

L.A. Homeless Servs. Auth., Homeless Services

System Analysis: Envisioning an

Optimal System in Los Angeles (Mar.

2020), p. 23, http://tinyurl.com/yc88svtt ........ 10

L.A. Homeless Servs. Auth., Project Roomkey

Ends Homelessness For 4,824 People

(Nov. 18, 2022),

http://tinyurl.com/47yhktwf.......................... 7, 8

Lavena Staten & Sara Rankin, Penny Wise But

Pound Foolish: How Permanent

Supportive Housing Can Prevent a

World of Hurt (July 12, 2019), p. 28,

http://tinyurl.com/478z6ubd ........................... 11

McKinsey & Co., Homelessness in Los Angeles:

A Unique Crisis Demanding New

Solutions (Apr. 2023),

http://tinyurl.com/a727fp4b .............................. 3

v

Nat’l Alliance to End Homelessness, Ending

Chronic Homelessness Saves Taxpayers

Money, http://tinyurl.com/ytz67k45 ............... 10

Steve Lopez, Column: There’s a Trash and

Rodent Nightmare in Downtown L.A.,

with Plenty of Blame to Go Around, L.A.

Times, May 25, 2019 ....................................... 13

Suzanne Zerger, et al., The Role and Meaning

of Interim Housing in Housing First

Programs for People Experiencing

Homelessness and Mental Illness,

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

431-37, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099842 ........ 9

U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 2023

Annual Homelessness Assessment Report

(AHAR) to Congress Part 1: Point-InTime Estimates of Homelessness (Dec.

2023), http://tinyurl.com/3ssxzvsu ................... 1

U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev.,

Understanding Encampments of People

Experiencing Homelessness and

Community Responses (Jan. 7, 2019),

pp. 4-5, http://tinyurl.com/4vamwzsb............... 8

1

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE 1

By size and scale, the County of Los Angeles could

not be more differently situated than Grants Pass, a

small city of 38,000 people with between 50 and 600

unhoused individuals and zero available shelter beds.

Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, 72 F.4th 868, 874-75

(9th Cir. 2023). The County spans a geographic area

larger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined,

with nearly 10 million residents in 88 incorporated

cities, in addition to over 2,600 square miles of

unincorporated areas. 2 With between 70,000 and

75,000 unhoused constituents, it has the largest

population of people experiencing homelessness

(“PEH”) in California, over 70 percent of whom are

unsheltered. 3

The County has invested billions of dollars to

develop a wide range of dynamic interim and

permanent housing solutions, provide wrap-around

services for PEH, and deploy preventative strategies

1 Per this Court’s Rule 37.6, this brief was not authored in whole

or in part by any party, and no one other than amicus or its

counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or

submission.

2 The areas outside these 88 cities are unincorporated.

For the

approximately 1 million people living in these areas, the County

Board of Supervisors is their “city council” and the Supervisor

representing the area is their “mayor.”

3 U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 2023 Annual Homelessness

Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress Part 1: Point-In-Time

Estimates

of

Homelessness

(Dec.

2023),

http://tinyurl.com/3ssxzvsu; L.A. Homeless Servs. Auth., 2023

Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count (June 29, 2023),

http://tinyurl.com/8h9a937w.

2

in collaboration with other government and

community partners. Those tools include mobile

outreach and engagement services, eviction

prevention, mental health services and substance use

disorder treatment, rapid re-housing, and short-term

financial assistance, among many others.

Those efforts—grounded in a sense of urgency and

an evidence-based, care-first approach—have shown

real progress. Since the passage of Measure H in

2017—a voter-approved ¼-cent sales tax to address

and prevent homelessness—the County’s homeless

services system has grown exponentially. Over a sixyear period, the County provided permanent housing

to 98,905 people and interim housing to 137,656

people. 4 After declaring a state of emergency on

homelessness in January 2023, those efforts have

accelerated. The County succeeded in making 23,600

placements into permanent housing, 38,000 interim

placements, as well as preventing over 11,000 people

from becoming homeless in the last year alone. 5 In

addition, the County’s development of 2,013 new

affordable and permanent supportive housing units in

2023 reflects a 67 percent increase from 2022, and an

additional 4,587 units are in the pipeline countywide. 6

4 Fesia A. Davenport, Homeless Initiative Quarterly Report (Oct.

18, 2023), http://tinyurl.com/35rbu4br.

5 Christina Villacorte, L.A. County Reports Significant Progress

in First Year of Emergency Homeless Response (Feb. 13, 2024),

http://tinyurl.com/muy8ccpb.

6 L.A. County Homeless Initiative, By the Numbers – L.A. County

Homeless Emergency Response (2023),

http://tinyurl.com/3sks6yx7.

3

Despite these achievements, with a massive and

long-standing affordable housing shortage and a

population of 800,000 low-income and extremely lowincome residents, the inflow into homelessness in the

County still outpaces the outflow. 7

Thus,

encampments in Los Angeles persist and present

serious public health and safety risks to the housed

and unhoused alike.

The majority in Grants Pass is correct that “crisislevels of homelessness” will not abate if jurisdictions

regain “the authority to punish involuntarily homeless

persons for sleeping in public with blankets,” and the

County certainly does not advocate for such a right.

Johnson, 72 F.4th at 915 (Silver, J. & Gould, J. Joint

Statement Regarding Denial of Rehearing). But the

majority’s presumption that neither Grants Pass, nor

Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018),

hinders local governments in their ability “to pursue

policies that would reduce the homeless population” is

wrong. Johnson, 72 F.4th at 923.

Local governments need clear constitutional

guidelines, so that they may address the homelessness

crisis with the decisiveness and sense of urgency it

requires. Johnson falls far short of the mark. A

murky judicial standard—that local governments,

large and small, uniformly report is unworkable in

practice—diverts vitally needed funds towards

litigation; places a disproportionate emphasis on

short-term solutions; and creates uncertainty that

7 McKinsey & Co., Homelessness in Los Angeles: A Unique Crisis

Demanding New Solutions (Apr. 2023),

http://tinyurl.com/a727fp4b.

4

impedes progress. Such a standard impacts all

municipalities—including those like the County,

which favor encampment resolutions that are

grounded in PEH voluntarily choosing to leave the

streets in favor of provided housing options.

With deep knowledge and experience in providing

housing and other services to PEH, the County—as

the most impacted jurisdiction in the country—has a

substantial interest and important perspective in this

litigation. Its resolution will have enormous practical

consequences for all the people of Los Angeles.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Under the reasoning of Johnson and the cases on

which it relied, the availability of shelter beds is the

dispositive issue in determining whether a

government ordinance impermissibly punishes

“status” or lawfully regulates public spaces for the

common good. This logic rests on two faulty premises:

First, Johnson presupposes that the mere

availability of shelter provides refuge from the

“status” of homelessness. This is both empirically

false and has the effect of disproportionately funneling

limited resources towards interim housing and other

short-term approaches at the expense of other, equally

important longer-term interventions. See Johnson, 72

F.4th at 890. Interim housing is an essential first step

and makes the problem of homelessness less visible.

But shelters do not end homelessness.

Shifting the focus back to interim housing—at the

expense of permitting individual public agencies to

create a balanced homeless services system that fits

their needs—exacerbates the shortage of permanent

5

housing solutions and stymies the overall

effectiveness of the system.

Robust preventive

strategies and adequate permanent housing, coupled

with wrap-around services, are just as vital to achieve

the sustainable, long-term solutions that the

homelessness crisis requires.

Second, Johnson disregards that enforcement of

municipal ordinances regarding public spaces and

rights of way—when properly employed—serve the

interests of the unhoused. Sanitation, maintaining

the public right of way, and law enforcement remain

the County’s jurisdiction for the one million residents

in the unincorporated areas. The County’s experience

is that all citizens, housed and unhoused alike, benefit

from a safe, clean environment. Many encampments

are dangerous and unsanitary, and public health

officials are rightly concerned about the impact of

these congregate settings on vulnerable people.

The County has had success with encampment

resolutions that constructively balance these

concerns. In the span of just seven months, the

County’s new Pathway Home Program has already

removed 12 encampments, moving over 500 people

into housing and removing 206 unsafe RVs from public

roadways. 8 The process is successful because it

provides a coordinated response and respects the

dignity of the unhoused.

Encampment resolution begins with outreach

teams developing trusting relationships with people at

L.A. County Homeless Initiative, Pathway Home,

https://homeless.lacounty.gov/pathway-home/ (last visited Feb.

28, 2024).

8

6

an encampment, helping them get treatment for

immediate medical needs, and offering them

immediate, diverse options for interim housing that

maintain community ties. Once in interim housing,

participants receive supportive services such as onsite case management and connections to physical and

mental health care, substance use disorder treatment,

benefits enrollment, and life skills development. The

County then connects individuals with housing

navigation to help them obtain permanent housing,

where they can continue to receive supportive

services.

The County also employs Homeless Outreach and

Mobile Engagement (“HOME”) teams, who have the

necessary expertise to serve unhoused individuals

with serious mental illnesses, substance use

disorders, and other physical challenges, who are

often highly avoidant of services. These teams build

trust; address basic needs; conduct clinical

assessments; provide street psychiatry; link people to

appropriate services; and even initiate outpatient

conservatorship and/or inpatient hospitalization when

appropriate. Finding these individuals housing is

always the goal, but there is significant work to be

done before this population will even accept interim

housing.

These strategies work and provide meaningful

inroads in addressing homelessness in Los Angeles.

But Johnson chills these and similar programs by

placing undue emphasis on interim shelter. In

drawing the lines between municipalities’ police

powers, their unhoused constituents’ constitutional

rights, and effective homeless governance, this Court

7

should not greenlight ordinances that disregard the

humanity of this country’s most vulnerable

constituents. But the Court should be wary of creating

constitutional strictures that sow doubt, exacerbate

legal risk, and infringe upon the role of local

executives.

ARGUMENT

I.

“SHELTER

AVAILABILITY”

TEST

THE

DISPROPORTIONATELY PRIORITIZES INTERIM

MEASURES OVER LONG-TERM, SUSTAINABLE

SOLUTIONS TO THE HOMELESSNESS CRISIS

Ignoring the critical spectrum of homeless policy

decisions, Johnson rests on a monolithic perception of

the PEH population as well as an outmoded, sheltercentered conception of homeless services. The Ninth

Circuit contemplates a regime in which individuals

experience homelessness on a “voluntary” or

“involuntary” basis, a determination that turns

exclusively on the existence of a shelter bed

somewhere in the vicinity. This approach is at odds

with realities of homelessness and the critical need for

local agencies to formulate a suite of services that

meet their constituents’ needs.

Temporary housing is an indispensable

component of the County’s homelessness policy. The

County has long been at the forefront of creative and

effective solutions to providing temporary shelter to

PEH, including “tiny home” projects, and re-purposing

unused hotel/motel rooms into interim housing. 9 The

9 L.A. County Homeless Initiative, Tiny Home Village Opens In

Torrance (July 6, 2022), http://tinyurl.com/4fw8sfrh; L.A.

Homeless Servs. Auth., Project Roomkey Ends Homelessness For

8

County’s interim housing options currently include

specialized placements for victims of domestic

violence, PEH healing from illness or injury, and PEH

in treatment for substance use disorders. 10

But cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all solutions are

not workable, and interim solutions are only part of an

efficient homeless services system. If interim housing

is not coupled with services and a credible pathway to

permanent

housing,

shelters

can

become

counterproductive, and according to a 2019 report

from the Department of Housing and Urban

Development, even push “people to congregate in

encampments.” 11 The reasons for this are multifold:

•

Shelters displace PEH from their chosen

locations and communities, which can interfere

with social connections and relationships with

outreach workers that are critical for service

delivery. The County’s Pathway Home program

addresses this issue by creating resolutions for

entire encampments, allowing the unhoused to

maintain their social connections.

4,824 People (Nov. 18, 2022), http://tinyurl.com/47yhktwf; L.A.

County Homeless Initiative, Homekey,

https://homeless.lacounty.gov/homekey/ (last visited Feb. 28,

2024).

10 L.A. County Homeless Initiative, Draft FY 2023-24 Funding

Recommendations (Dec. 8, 2022), http://tinyurl.com/2wy2tcbm.

11

U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., Understanding

Encampments of People Experiencing Homelessness and

Community

Responses

(Jan.

7,

2019),

pp.

4-5,

http://tinyurl.com/4vamwzsb.

9

•

While shelters remain an important first step to

help PEH off the street, many PEH face acute

challenges—including complex physical and

mental health conditions—and need clinical

care and access to specialized housing. That

comes with a connection to a robust, wholesale

system of services to avoid a revolving door

between shelters and the street; those needs

cannot be met in a shelter. 12

•

Some PEH are unwilling to stay in shelters or

to go to shelters in the first place, and it is these

chronically unhoused individuals who present

some

of

the

deepest

challenges

for

municipalities.

PEH may be resistant to

shelters’ rules and restrictions, which may

infringe on privacy and autonomy; bar the

storage of personal belongings; or impose

sobriety requirements that they cannot meet.

Programs like Pathway Home present PEH

with choices and a diverse array of interim

solutions to address this problem.

Without adequate permanent housing, interim

housing is often a bridge to nowhere. Because interim

shelter beds are intended to be temporary, individuals

residing in interim shelters are still homeless. Even

the federal government’s definition of a “homeless

individual” in 42 U.S.C. § 11302 includes PEH

residing in shelters, recognizing that shelters offer

12 See Suzanne Zerger, et al., The Role and Meaning of Interim

Housing in Housing First Programs for People Experiencing

Homelessness and Mental Illness, American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry 431-37, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099842.

10

only temporary

homelessness.

housing—not

a

respite

from

Interim housing is also a costly intervention.

Shelters are more expensive to operate than almost

any other form of housing—approximately $80 per bed

per day or $28,800 per year. 13 By comparison,

chronically homeless persons cost taxpayers an

average of $35,578 per year, with costs reduced by an

average of 49.5% when they are placed in supportive

housing. 14

A balanced homeless services system requires

more than just temporary shelters; 5 permanent

homes for every 1 temporary bed are needed. 15 That

balance ensures that people are not only able to get

under a roof, but also able to access a permanent home

quickly. If there is an imbalance between the number

of permanent housing and interim housing beds, then

individuals in interim housing will either exit back

into street or remain in the interim housing bed, to the

exclusion of another person on the street. Without

proportionally

increasing

permanent

housing

resources, the system becomes less effective overall.

13 L.A. County Homeless Initiative, Awardee Orientation (Apr.

15, 2023 update), http://tinyurl.com/ycxkes78.

14 Nat’l Alliance to End Homelessness, Ending Chronic

Homelessness Saves Taxpayers Money,

http://tinyurl.com/ytz67k45.

L.A. Homeless Servs. Auth., Homeless Services System

Analysis: Envisioning an Optimal System in Los Angeles (Mar.

2020), p. 23, http://tinyurl.com/yc88svtt.

15

11

Prioritizing permanent housing creates other

efficiencies as well. An estimated 10 to 20 percent of

the homeless population accounts for 56 to 60 percent

of public service costs. 16 When the most vulnerable—

and highest cost—users of the homeless services

system are placed in permanent housing,

municipalities dramatically cut costs by (1) reducing

the use of emergency services, hospitals, detoxification

centers and shelters, and (2) decreasing interaction

with the criminal justice system. Those cost savings

are often equal to or exceed the cost of permanent

supportive housing. 17

The County appropriately takes this information

about outcomes and best practices into account when

it must make decisions on how to allocate resources,

which remain scarce. Johnson, by artificially limiting

the calculus to shelter capacity, threatens to upend

the intelligent, data-driven decisions made by local

governments on how to most effectively use finite,

public budgets to reduce homelessness permanently.

16 D. Srebnik, et al.: Impact of Supported Housing Prioritization

System Using Vulnerability and High Service Utilization,

Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless (May 2017),

http://tinyurl.com/bdz8arsm (noting Client Care Coordination

program in King County, Washington, prioritizing housing

placement based on clinical need and high-cost public service use,

showed $2.8 million reduction in the use of public services,

comparing year following permanent housing entrance and the

year prior).

See Lavena Staten & Sara Rankin, Penny Wise But Pound

Foolish: How Permanent Supportive Housing Can Prevent a

World of Hurt (July 12, 2019), p. 28, http://tinyurl.com/478z6ubd.

17

12

II.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ ABILITY TO MAINTAIN

THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AS A SAFE, CLEAN

SPACE POSITIVELY IMPACTS THE UNHOUSED

The en banc majority’s presumption that the

enforcement of municipal ordinances invariably

results in a net negative impact on the unhoused

creates a false binary. Johnson discounts how unsafe

and unsanitary encampments are for the unhoused.

Encampments pose acute dangers and public health

risks to all community members, including the

unhoused. Three key aspects of community wellbeing

illustrate this point.

Encampments

create

fire

hazards.

Encampments create fire hazards and are responsible

for a substantial share of total fires. In high fire

hazard severity zones and environmentally sensitive

areas like Los Angeles County, these conditions carry

deadly and costly consequences. This results in a

significant share of avoidable fires that affect both

unhoused and housed persons. The loss of property is

particularly devastating for unhoused people who can

lose all their belongings in an instant, including

personal documentation necessary to secure support

services and obtain housing. 18

The correlation between encampments and fires

is well-documented. Since 2018, fires relating to

homelessness have doubled in Los Angeles, causing

around $185 million in damage. 19 In the first quarter

18 Doug Smith, et al., 24 Fires a Day: Surge in Flames at L.A.

Homeless Encampments a Growing Crisis, L.A. Times, May 12,

2021.

19 Id.

13

of 2021, over half of the fires Los Angeles Fire

Department responded to were related to homeless

people living in the streets or in encampments. 20 Even

where fires do not originate in encampments, the

accumulation

of

flammable

materials—e.g.,

cardboard, debris, mattresses—present severe fire

hazards and expose encampment residents to dangers

as fires spread.

Encampments encourage illegal dumping. A

central measure of the health and wellbeing of a

municipality is the presence of trash and debris in

public spaces. 21 There is a documented nexus between

illegal dumping and the accumulation of debris and

bulky items endemic to homeless encampments. 22

That is because illegal dumpers—who typically

are not unhoused—exploit homeless encampments for

their own financial gain. They target areas that are

already impacted by poor sanitary conditions, covertly

adding trash, debris, and untreated harmful

substances such as paint, appliances, construction

waste, and motor oil around encampments to avoid

paying the substantial fees required to dispose of such

materials safely. 23 And they leave a massive amount

of waste. From January to August 2020, Los Angeles

20 Id.

L.A. City Controller report to City Council, Piling up:

Addressing L.A.’s Illegal Dumping Problem (Mar. 24, 2021),

https://controller.lacity.gov/audits/illegaldumping.

21

22 Id.; see Steve Lopez, Column: There’s a Trash and Rodent

Nightmare in Downtown L.A., with Plenty of Blame to Go Around,

L.A. Times, May 25, 2019.

23 Id.

14

sanitation crews collected 34,340 pounds of paint

waste, 33,107 pounds of oil waste, and 9,347 pounds of

corrosives (i.e., materials that can destroy bodily

tissue). 24

With limited exceptions, these are not materials

that the unhoused are introducing into encampments.

The unhoused are scapegoats for other bad actors, who

cause real harm to an already highly vulnerable

population. Illegal dumping substantially worsens

already unhealthy and dangerous living conditions.

By diverting resources, it also harms municipalities,

and makes it harder for local governments, like the

County, to provide essential support services to

PEH. 25

Encampments obstruct roadways and

endanger PEH. PEH often seek shelter in freeways,

underpasses, and rest areas. As vital infrastructure,

these areas are regulated by departments of

transportation that rely on a combination of local and

state regulations and partnerships with other

agencies to ensure roadways are safe, clear, and

navigable. 26

24 Id.

25 Id.; see Chris Woodyard, Los Angeles County Seeks Action from

City on Toilets, Rats and Trash to Combat Homeless Crisis, USA

Today, June, 8, 2019.

26 Jacob L. Wasserman, et al., The Road, Home: Challenges of and

Responses

to

Homelessness

in

State

Transportation

Environments,

21

ScienceDirect

(Sept.

2023),

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259019822300

1379.

15

For the unhoused, living near roadways and

freeways inflicts adverse health and safety risks—

including dangers of vehicle injuries and air and noise

pollution. 27 Unlawfully parked or unsafe recreational

vehicles likewise pose unique challenges. 28

The County’s preferred approach for resolving

these health and safety risks is programs like

Pathway Home, which removes unsafe vehicles

voluntarily relinquished by their owners, and moves

people into housing, while restoring public spaces and

roadways to their intended use. But other tools must

be available, including enforcement of non-criminal

public health and safety ordinances when constructive

and necessary.

Enforcement of such municipal

ordinances—even

without

resorting

to

the

criminalization of homelessness, which the County

rejects—is sometimes necessary to ensure public

safety and resolve emergent dangers.

*****

Under existing Ninth Circuit law, it is much more

challenging for municipalities to mitigate against

dangerous,

hazardous

conditions—like

those

described above—while adhering to ambiguous

constitutional mandates regarding unhoused citizens.

With Johnson, the Ninth Circuit has only deepened

the confusion. Johnson provides no clarity as to when

and how a regulation aimed at protecting the

wellbeing

of

all

residents

violates

PEH’s

constitutional rights. And it wrongly assumes that

27 Id.

28 Id.

16

municipal ordinances that seek to maintain safe,

healthy, and hazard-free public spaces are necessarily

adverse to the PEH who live in those areas. In fact,

the opposite is true. PEH equally benefit from

regulations preserving the health and safety of public

spaces.

CONCLUSION

No one doubts the severity of the homelessness

crisis or the need for more housing.

Local

governments need clarity and momentum to address

homelessness, which this Court can help provide.

Respectfully submitted,

Mira Hashmall

Counsel of Record

Nadia A. Sarkis

MILLER BARONDESS, LLP

2121 Avenue of the Stars,

Suite 2600

Los Angeles, California 90067

(310) 552-7560

mhashmall@millerbarondess.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

The County of Los Angeles