The Supreme Court has rejected judicial overreach by the Ninth Circuit, restoring the ability of West Coast cities to manage their public spaces effectively. The majority opinion cited several times an amicus brief led by Idaho.
Before this ruling, cities within the Ninth Circuit could not enforce bans on public camping unless they provided "adequate" shelter for all homeless residents. This made it challenging to clear homeless encampments that occupied city parks and brought about crime and disease. The Ninth Circuit had previously ruled that enforcing public sleeping bans against the homeless would constitute "cruel and unusual punishment."
"I was proud to lead the 23 supporting amicus states for this case," said Attorney General Labrador. "I’m very pleased the Supreme Court has concurred with our arguments. We have all witnessed the impacts on public streets and spaces in once-beautiful cities like Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle. Homeless camping has destroyed the vitality of these cities, fueled by enabling policies of legalized drugs and de-prioritized mental health resources. Residents sidestep used needles, garbage, and human waste in their public spaces as they go to work every single day. This SCOTUS decision is at the heart of preserving safety and livability in cities everywhere."
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, "Yes, people will disagree over which policy responses are best; they may experiment with one set of approaches only to find later another set works better; they may find certain responses more appropriate for some communities than others. But in our democracy, that is their right. Nor can a handful of judges begin to 'match' the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding 'how best to handle' a pressing social question like homelessness."
The decision can be read here: Grants Pass v. Johnson