Cover Story: City Council to Discuss Supreme Court’s Grants Pass Decision Late Next Month

The City Council is scheduled to discuss the Grants Pass ruling late next month, according to City Clerk Mark Jomsky.

The controversial Supreme Court has lifted previous restrictions that prohibited municipalities from certain enforcement measures aimed at curtailing public encampments. Advocates argue the ruling provides necessary tools to maintain civic order and safeguard commercial and residential areas, while critics contend it criminalizes homelessness and could exacerbate social inequities.

The City Council has the next two weeks off, which means the discussion would occur on Aug. 19 or Aug. 26 if it takes place next month.

“Nothing is set in stone, but we’re looking at Aug. 26. We know it’s a very important topic,” said Public Information Officer Lisa Derderian.

The ruling has been briefly discussed, although not agendized, at several City Council meetings.

Mayor Victor Gordo and Steve Madison have expressed some support for the decision, and Councilmember Jason Lyon has expressed his opposition.

Gordo cautioned that the decision should not be abused and pointed to the need to address root causes like mental health and substance disorder but added that the City has “a responsibility to maintain a healthy community for people in general.”

Meanwhile the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors was scheduled to deliberate Tuesday on a proposal that would reaffirm the Board’s policy against criminalizing homelessness.

According to that motion, County jails “will not be used to hold people arrested due to enforcement of anti-camping ordinances.”

Higher Stakes

The stakes increased last week when Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order requiring state agencies to prioritize clearing encampments that pose safety risks in their jurisdictions.

“In June 2024 the Supreme Court overturned Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent that restricted the government’s authority to enforce laws regulating encampments, recognizing that jurisdictions may tailor their enforcement practices to reflect policy-driven approaches to addressing homelessness … with the threat of these types of injunctions removed, there is no longer any barrier to local governments utilizing the substantial resources provided by the State, in tandem with federal and local resources, to address encampments with both urgency and humanity, or excuse for not doing so.”

The order would largely apply to freeway encampments and those in state parks.

The order calls on officials to give advance notice to vacate, connect the unhoused to local services and help store their belongings for at least two months.

Although the order pointed out that local governments still have the power to decide how to deal with unhoused populations in their respective cities, it did not address the fact clearing out encampments could push more unhoused people onto the streets of nearby municipalities.

“Pasadena has not changed its day-to-day approach to homelessness efforts as a result of either line of these decisions. It’s important to note that any prospective change would be implemented only if the City Council directs a change to local policy after it carefully considers both,” Derderian told Pasadena Now soon after Newsom’s executive order was announced.

“The City of Pasadena continues to reinforce our steadfast commitment to assisting people experiencing homelessness. Our goal in Pasadena is to make homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring. Thanks to the support of our City Council and Congresswoman Judy Chu, we have been able to enhance the outreach and services we provide to those experiencing homeless in Pasadena. Our two main teams in the community that are proactively providing services and responding to calls when needed are the PORT and HOPE teams.”

Latest count

Locally there are more than 500 homeless people in Pasadena on any given night, according to the latest homeless count.

And local activists worry that the Grants Pass decision puts them at risk.

“Anytime you criminalize homelessness, we’ve seen this happen before over the decades. It doesn’t change the problem,” said Shawn Morrissey, Vice President of Advocacy and Community Engagement for Union Station Homeless Services.

“It just creates more problems,” he said. “because people become entangled, [the justice system becomes] involved. Once they’re justice-involved, that may take them off the forward movement of the housing track that they have been on.”

How We Got Here

On any given night about 500-600 people experience homelessness in Grants Pass.

The city passed ordinances that prohibited ‘camping’ on public property, broadly defined to include using materials for bedding to maintain a temporary place to live. Violations could result in fines of up to $295 per offense and potential jail time for multiple offenses.

In 2018, Gloria Johnson, John Logan and Debra Blake challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance, and a federal District court ruled in their favor barring the city from enforcing the ordinances at certain times and under specific circumstances.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the District court’s decision in 2022. However, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed this ruling in June and held that the enforcement of laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

“Homelessness is complex,” said Justice Gorsuch in the court’s opinion. “Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not.”

But the minority decried the law and the impact they believe it would have on people.

“Laws like the one at issue here punish people who don’t have access to shelter, amounting to cruel and unusual punishment,” wrote Sonja Sonomayer. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined her dissent.

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” Sotomayor wrote. “For some people, sleeping outside is their only option.”