The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that local governments have the right to implement and enforce policies prohibiting camping in public — rules generally intended to discourage homeless people from sleeping in parks and other public places.
Many elected officials in Pierce County said the court’s decision in Grants Pass v. will not impact policy in their respective jurisdictions. Others, including in Lakewood, have moved forward to implement policies designed to deter homelessness, using the language of the court ruling.
Here’s what we know about how some local jurisdictions intend to implement the Grants Pass ruling:
Pierce County
In Pierce County, officials agree that action is needed to address homelessness and the affordable housing crisis, but they are divided on how to do so.
Pierce County Executive Bruce Dammeiera Republican, told The News Tribune last week that he opposed political decisions that could result in more “tent cities,” like a emergency concierge recently defeated on a party-line vote that would have made it easier to build shelters in unincorporated areas.
Dammeier said that instead of building more temporary shelters, the county should focus on building more long-term, stable housing like the proposed 280-unit Pierce County microvillage for the chronically homeless he pushed to build in Spanaway.
Dammeier said he doesn’t think the Grants Pass v. Johnson will have a lot of effect on what the county is doing in unincorporated Pierce County to clean up rights of way and address illegal encampments. The challenge is that some people do not accept the services, “and build much more [temporary shelters]if people don’t come in, that’s not the right solution,” he said.
“Our goal is always to get people to the treatment, to the services they need, and to get them well and restored and back to a life of dignity. That’s always our focus and we’ll continue to do that,” Dammeier said. “We haven’t allowed illegal camps – we won’t allow them – it won’t be any different in that regard. Some of our cities could change how they approach this [after this ruling]. In my opinion, it provides additional tools to get people to accept services.”
Pierce County Council member Marty Campbell, a Democrat, is chairman of the council’s Select Committee on Homelessness. The committee was created by the council in 2023 to focus on solutions for the growing homelessness crisis in the region.
Campbell told The News Tribune he doesn’t expect the Grants Pass v. Johnson has any impact on the work the County Council is doing to address homelessness. He also said he doesn’t believe no-camping policies are an effective solution.
“Criminalizing homelessness is not the answer, and putting vulnerable people in prison for the simple fact that they exist will only [exacerbate] the issues that led them to homelessness in the first place,” Campbell wrote in a statement to The News Tribune. “The criminal justice system should not be the place we look to help stabilize people and get them off the streets.”
Campbell said he feels a better solution to the crisis would be to prioritize a range of services and supports for those experiencing homelessness.
“People are dying on our streets, there has been a 23% year on year increase in homelessness, so we need housing built now. It will take at least a decade to build affordable housing with the capacity to meet the needs,” Campbell said. “This requires solutions on multiple fronts – emergency housing, safe parking, affordable housing, behavioral health and substance use support, among many others. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.”
Tacoma
In September 2023, former Tacoma City Attorney signed an Amicus Brief written for the Supreme Court in relation to Grants Pass v. The document, written on behalf of the city, argued that municipalities should have leeway in enforcing a ban on camping in public spaces.
The city of Tacoma has implemented its own camping ban in 2022.
Tacoma Municipal Code 8.19, passed in October 2022, prohibits camping and storing personal belongings within a 10-block radius around temporary shelters and all public properties within 200 feet of Tacoma’s rivers, waterways, streams, creeks and shorelines. According to the ordinance, violators face fines of up to $250 and up to 30 days in jail.
City spokeswoman Maria Lee said that as of July 12, only one arrest had been made related to the ordinance since its implementation in 2022.
“The Supreme Court’s recent ruling does not require the city to change its existing code, so it does not affect Tacoma’s current law on restrictions on the use of public property,” Lee told The News Tribune. “I must emphasize that the city has always worked to address unauthorized encampments with a ‘services first’ approach and will continue to do so.”
Lakewood
On Monday, the Lakewood City Council passed an ordinance to ban public camping, reflecting the language of the Grants Pass v. Johnson. The ordinance gives Lakewood police officers the power to remove people sleeping outdoors on public property and their personal belongings if they do not vacate after 24 hours. Last summer, Lakewood camping overnight is prohibited on public property within 15 miles of Lakewood City Hall and also banned the use and disposal of “dangerous drugs” in public. Violation of any of these laws may result in criminal penalties and fines.
Monday’s approval of the decree came after nearly two hours of debate and a split vote. Lakewood Mayor Jason Whalen called it a “tough love” approach to homelessness that gives police more tools to solve the problem. Not everyone on the council agreed it was the best approach, and council member J. Trestin Lauricella expressed concern that the council effectively “criminalized people who are homeless and have nowhere else to go.”
Puyallup
The City of Puyallup has codes that prohibit camping and storing personal property in parks and public spaces.
Puyallup Mayor Jim Kastama did not respond to calls or emails from The News Tribune asking whether the Grants Pass v. Johnson would have some impact on political discussions in the city.
Show port
Gig Harbor currently has no municipal codes to prohibit public camping.
When asked how the Supreme Court ruling would impact political discussions in Gig Harbor, Mayor Tracie Markley told The News Tribune that the city is evaluating the court’s decision and that staff would be working with the City Council on what they could do. want to take action.
“We have had continued success in helping those experiencing homelessness and will strive to respond with compassion and hopeful shelter placement until an established city policy is implemented,” Markley wrote in an email to The News Tribune.
Advocates for the homeless
Rob Huff is a spokesperson for Tacoma/Pierce County Coalition to End Homelessness — a regional coalition of community organizations, service providers and government agencies working to end homelessness.
On July 10th, The News Tribune published a letter written by Huff opposing the Supreme Court’s decision in Grants Pass v.
“The Tacoma Pierce County Coalition to End Homelessness opposes any ordinance that focuses on punitive approaches to homelessness, because fining and threatening to arrest people for trying to survive outdoors does nothing to end homelessness. homeless,” Huff told The News Tribune in a July 15 email.
Huff said he and his coalition colleagues believe county and local governments should focus on creating solutions to homelessness rather than policies that “simply push human beings into another neighborhood or another community.”
Huff told The News Tribune that policies that focus on fines and arrests are a “clear sign that a community is throwing up its hands and giving up.”
“These policies essentially create a system of harassment that makes those who are homeless and who don’t have the option of moving into temporary shelters even more vulnerable to things like hot and cold weather,” Huff said. “This leads to worse health outcomes, more despair and a greater potential for death for those who are forced to live with only what they can carry with them at any given time.”
Background to Grants Pass v.
The case originated in Grants Pass, Oregon, a city of about 39,000 people. After the city passed policies to penalize public campers, a lawsuit was filed in 2018 on behalf of homeless people in the region.
The lawsuit alleged that “the City of Grants Pass has a web of ordinances, customs, and practices that, in combination, punish people based on their involuntarily homeless status.”
In that case, Mark D. Clarke, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, ruled that because Grants Pass does not have adequate shelter for its homeless population, it could not punish people who do not have access to shelter by the act of sleeping or resting outdoors, as it would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
“Let us not forget that the homeless are citizens as much as those who are fortunate enough to have a safe living space,” Clarke wrote at the end of his opinion.
The city appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The legal question asked: “Does enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision. On August 22, 2023, Grants Pass appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the high court agreed to hear the case less than five months later.
In the court’s opinion issued on June 28, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote: “The Eighth Amendment performs many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to strip these rights and responsibilities from the American people and instead dictate the policy of homeless people of this nation.”
