The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to hear an appeal of a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal ruling limiting when homeless people can be arrested in California and eight other Western states has left lawmakers who want a crackdown over the homeless’ negative effects on quality of life not even sure what that might look like.

In 2018, the San Francisco-based appellate court threw out a broadly written Boise, Idaho, law allowing arrests for sleeping in public, holding that if there were no shelter beds available, this was a cruel and unusual punishment. But dozens of local governments submitted or co-signed amicus briefs to the Supreme Court arguing that the decision was murky at best. One oft-cited example: If a city has fewer shelter beds than its homeless population, is the city automatically blocked from arresting those sleeping in public? 

Some Los Angeles officials fear that’s a likely interpretation.

“The [Boise case] language, rather than citing clear principles where constitutional questions are at stake, makes local jurisdictions vulnerable to lawsuits as they struggle to achieve a balance between the legitimate rights and interests of homeless people and the legitimate rights and interests of other residents and businesses,” City Attorney Mike Feuer told The New York Times.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas called the ruling “ambiguous and confusing” and said in a statement released by his office that the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal “handicaps cities and counties from acting nimbly to aid those perishing on the streets, exacerbating unsafe and unhealthy conditions that negatively affect our most vulnerable residents.”

Large homeless camps called ‘untenable’

It was Ridley-Thomas in September who signaled the arrival of a backlash on homelessness by breaking dramatically with Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who has called for a compassion-first approach to what he calls “the moral and humanitarian crisis of our time.”

After persuading L.A. County supervisors to vote 3-2 to support filing an amicus brief backing Boise’s appeal, Ridley-Thomas issued a statement saying the status quo in which the city and county accept massive homeless encampments is “untenable. … We need to call this what it is — a state of emergency — and refuse to resign ourselves to a reality where people are allowed to live in places not fit for human habitation.”

Until then, Ridley-Thomas had been seen as a supporter of the view touted by Democrats like Garcetti and Gov. Gavin Newsom, who argue that homelessness can be sharply reduced with the patient, smart use of public resources. Earlier this year, Newsom had named Ridley-Thomas to be part of his state commission on homelessness.

The fear that the Boise ruling would destroy the quality of life in cities with substantial homeless populations was a focus of Boise’s appeal, which was prepared by the Los Angeles-based Gibson Dunn law firm. “Nothing in the Constitution … requires cities to surrender their streets, sidewalks, parks, riverbeds and other public areas to vast encampments,” the appeal asserted.

San Francisco official downplays impact of ruling

While they were outnumbered by lawmakers who feared the worst, some local officials in San Francisco and Oakland were less alarmed with the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to pass on the Boise case.

In interpreting the appellate court’s 2018 ruling, these officials concluded they had the open-ended right to clear encampments that posed clear health and safety risks — so long as they notified those in encampments ahead of time that the camps are going to be cleared and offered the homeless storage for their belongings.

Jeff Kositsky, chief of San Francisco’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, told the San Francisco Chronicle that he considered the Supreme Court’s action to be a “nonissue.”

Seventy-five miles to the east, Sacramento officials were far more concerned. They fear the upholding of the Boise ruling will interfere with local governments’ efforts to remove the homeless camps that have frequently sprung up in flood-prone areas, especially by the American River in Sacramento.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has drawn a line on homelessness, voting 3-2 to support a challenge to an expansive 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that forbids local governments in nine Western states from enforcing laws against camping or sleeping on sidewalks or in other public places unless overnight shelter is available.

That ruling came in September 2018. In invalidating a Boise, Idaho, law against sleeping on public lands, Judge Marsha Berzon wrote that “just as the state may not criminalize the state of being ‘homeless in public places,’ the state may not criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless — namely sitting, lying or sleeping on the streets.’” Berzon wrote for a three-judge panel.

Ted Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general who won the Bush v. Gore case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000, is among the attorneys working with the city of Boise on an appeal. Los Angeles County will file an amicus brief in support of the appeal.

Republican Supervisor Kathryn Barger and Democrat Supervisor Janice Hahn co-sponsored the resolution to file the brief. Democratic Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, a member of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s state homelessness task force, surprised some observers by being the third vote for the resolution. Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and many big-city Democrats have endorsed policies that emphasize helping and sympathizing with the homeless. Garcetti has called homelessness “the moral and humanitarian crisis of our time.”

Supervisor: Don’t accept ’emergency’ as ‘new normal’

But Ridley-Thomas said in a statement that he was “fed up. The status quo is untenable. … We need to call this what it is — a state of emergency — and refuse to resign ourselves to a reality where people are allowed to live in places not fit for human habitation. I refuse to accept this as our new normal.” Los Angeles County has nearly 60,000 homeless people, according to official estimates, more than double the numbers seen 20 years ago.

Supervisors Sheila Kuehl and Hilda Solis, both Democrats, voted no on the resolution, saying homelessness should not be criminalized. Kuehl also said she feared what a “terrible” U.S. Supreme Court might decide in its ruling.

Activists blasted Barger, Hahn and Ridley-Thomas not only for lacking compassion but for reinforcing the narrative of President Donald Trump that homelessness is out of control in coastal California.

“We can’t let Los Angeles, San Francisco and numerous other cities destroy themselves by allowing what’s happening,” Trump said last week.

The president has used Twitter to depict leaders of these cities as hapless and paralyzed in responding to declining quality of life caused by homelessness. He also dispatched Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson to visit Skid Row in Los Angeles last week and said he wanted to help California deal with its homeless problem.

But the nature of possible federal help is unclear. Trump has suggested that homeless people might be rounded up and housed on federal property or military bases, but civil-rights lawyers say the president has no authority to forcibly relocate individuals who have not committed federal crimes. 

The Associated Press reported that Carson might link federal housing grants to local governments’ efforts to make it easier to add housing by limiting regulations. That approach would parallel efforts by Newsom and lawmakers led by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, to weaken local zoning rules that they say enable NIMBYs to block new housing.

As CalWatchdog reported in April, supervisors had taken initial steps to mandate that the costs involved in collecting and disposing of unused prescription drugs and syringes be shifted from Los Angeles County to U.S. and international pharmaceutical companies.

The measure wasn’t justified with claims that these companies somehow had a moral and ethical responsibility to pay for disposal of their potentially dangerous products. Instead, officials asserted that it was a costly and difficult task that the county was ill-suited to handle. This type of trash is “one of the things we’re completely ill-equipped to take. … We just had one of our biggest days ever just a few months ago where we had almost 27 1/2 pounds of needles come through the line. The workers up there have leather gloves, but there are no gloves made that can stop a fine, little puncture from a needle,” a Burbank recylcing manager told KPCC.

Board disregards testimony of county health executive

But this week, three of five county supervisors went against the proposal, bucking the testimony of interim county Health Officer Jeffrey Gunzehauser, who linked ineffective drug disposal policies to the nation’s opiate overdose epidemic.

Instead, Supervisors Mark Ridley-Thomas, Don Knabe and Mike Antonovich accepted the pharmaceutical companies’ offer “to pay for an education and outreach program about existing take-back options and to explain how to dispose of unused medications in the trash, a method opposed by county public health officials,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

This didn’t sit well with the Sheila Kuehl and Hilda Solis, according to the Los Angeles Daily News. They wanted the program adopted and hold out hope it can be revived.

While the L.A. County plan is unusual, it has a precedent. In 2013, lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown enacted Senate Bill 254. The law requires mattress manufacturers “to create and manage a mattress recycling organization that will provide recycling services to municipalities for free. The program will be financed by a visible mattress recycling charge, or ‘eco-fee,’ which will be collected from consumers at the point of sale.”

Mattress manufacturers complained intensely about the law, but talk of a lawsuit was never followed up on.