The Antelope Valley Times

Your community. Your issues. Your news.

L.A. County officials respond to SCOTUS declining to hear homeless sleeping case

by •

[File]
LOS ANGELES – The ability of local governments to enact and enforce restrictions on homeless people sleeping on sidewalks or in other public areas was left in doubt Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling barring such regulations unless adequate shelter space is available.

The county of Los Angeles, along with a host of other government agencies, had filed court papers in support of an appeal of the ruling in the case known as Martin v. City of Boise. The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals essentially bars cities and counties from citing people for sleeping on sidewalks unless there is enough alternative shelter space available for the homeless.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, declined to hear the case, meaning the 9th Circuit ruling will stand.

“With unprecedented numbers of people falling into homelessness nationwide, we are experiencing an urgent humanitarian crisis,” Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas said. “More than 1,000 individuals will die on Los Angeles County streets this year. Supporting the city of Boise’s position to appeal to the Supreme Court was never an attempt to criminalize the homeless. Rather, it was a pursuit of a legal framework that is clear, in comparison to a status quo that is ambiguous and confusing.”

Ridley-Thomas said the ruling only hampers the county’s ability to help people living on the streets, and the decision will continue to create unsafe and unhealthy conditions.

On the other side, homeless advocacy organizations celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case as a victory for people who have had negative experiences with homeless service officials and the police.

“We’re glad that the fate of our neighbors doesn’t rest with a very conservative Supreme Court,” the Los Angeles-based homeless advocacy organization KTown for All stated on Twitter. “This news is a serious relief to a number of homeless residents, service providers and advocates.”

–

13 comments for "L.A. County officials respond to SCOTUS declining to hear homeless sleeping case"

  1. So much for “Trickle down economics”.

    Have you noticed that as the upper 1% get richer, not million$ but billion$$$, that the homeless population grows?

    How can that be? That sounds like a 3rd world country.

    And don’t say it’s all drug users. There are homeless moms with young children sleeping in cars too.

    • Ah man, I love being in that 1%. I know, everything that is wrong here in the country is the 1% fault. Oh wait, it is also Trump’s fault, and he is a 1% kinda guy. Funny how he has only been there in office for 3 years and all the problems of the country are his fault. The problems never existed before him.

      I have also seen a lot of homeless moms addicted to drugs. They are not all held harmless.

        • Remember my prediction: House flips red, 5 more years of obnoxious Orange Man as POTUS then 8 more of Gaetz. Swamp drained and SCOTUS activist judges are in minority. All would be right in the world! I hope.

          I know your going to tell me I have %*#@! for brains (and you’d be absolutely right, lol.), but nonetheless.

          • InDepends

            I would like you to do me a favor though….

            If your predictions are correct, I want you to pay me $10,000*.

          • Real William:

            The economy will be so good after 13 more years of deregulation and capitalism that 10 grand will be chump change, so hit me up in 2032. And I’ll buy you a cup of coffovee (sic).

        • It isn’t over yet. You do realize Hillary is not President now right? They are trying to impeach him for a bunch of nothing they are somehow trying to get the smarter people of the country to believe. They are not going for it. The rest of the leftovers like William are completely sold on it.

          But back to the 1%. If it weren’t for them, William would have nothing to depend on every 15th and 30th.

  2. Low income housing really means (the projects). Shelters won’t help in the long run, and as always, the politicians don’t have a clue how to solve any of this mess. It’s all partisan pretense. Do a little homework and anyone can see what happens at housing projects.

  3. So they create the issue, then try to enforce some laws to get rid of the issue, their liberal appeals court says they can’t enforce the laws and they are upset……huh

    Time to pass another tax to build sufficient shelters and low income housing for the hundreds of thousands without shelter so they can then write a ticket for sleeping on the sidewalk.

  4. They fail to mention the majority of these homeless come from other states to California and that they chose to be homeless because they choose to use drugs. Facts are facts.