https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics...t-18406525.php

Citing San Francisco’s frustration with court orders restricting its authority to remove homeless encampments from the streets, the city and Mayor London Breed are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to immediately overturn an appellate ruling requiring local governments to provide shelter for their entire unhoused population before clearing the encampments.

“San Francisco’s compassionate efforts to address the homelessness crisis have been severely hamstrung” by the September 2022 decision of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, City Attorney David Chiu’s office said in a filing on behalf of the city and Breed.

The city went further than Gov. Gavin Newsom and local governments in California and elsewhere, who have asked the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to the appellate ruling. The court said Wednesday it would consider the case at its internal conference Oct. 27, and announce then or later whether to review the ruling, reverse it or leave it intact.

The appeals court had ruled in 2018 that cities can’t make it a crime to sleep on a street or sidewalk when no shelters are available. Last September, in a case from Grants Pass, Ore., the court specified that the homeless cannot be arrested or evicted from encampments unless a city has enough shelter beds for its homeless population.

Citing the Grants Pass ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu issued an injunction in December that prohibited San Francisco from clearing most homeless encampments. City officials said officers were arresting residents of the encampments who had refused offers of shelter, but Ryu said San Francisco’s shelters were full and had closed their waiting lists.

Ryu’s decision, and the appeals court decision she relied on, have “undermined the City’s balanced effort to provide services to persons experiencing homelessness while also protecting the health, safety, and welfare of all its residents,” Deputy City Attorney Tara Steeley wrote in San Francisco’s brief, filed Sept. 25.

“The City has been unable to implement the considered policy decisions of its Mayor and local legislature; unable to enforce the will of San Francisco voters; unable to allow conscientious City employees to do their jobs; and unable to protect its public spaces,” Steeley wrote. “The result is that San Francisco’s homelessness crisis has only seemed to worsen.”

Rather than granting review of the Grants Pass ruling and deciding the issue after a hearing in its upcoming term, the city asked the Supreme Court to take the unusual step of immediately reversing the ruling, which presumably would require Ryu to reconsider her injunction.

“San Francisco believes that it does not make sense to criminally prosecute homeless individuals for sleeping on public property when they have no other place to go, but Grants Pass misapplied the law and has left cities without the necessary tools to address homelessness and keep streets safe and accessible,” Jen Kwart, spokesperson for Chiu, said in a statement.

The Coalition on Homelessness, which challenged San Francisco’s sweeps of encampments in court, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a statement after Newsom’s filing, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area said Grants Pass was a “carefully considered decision” that protected the rights of some of society’s most vulnerable members.

“Instead of seeking to punish people simply because they cannot afford the limited housing in California, the governor and elected officials at all levels should focus their attention on policy solutions such as building more affordable housing,” the two groups said in a statement.

The Supreme Court had denied review of the Ninth Circuit’s 2018 decision barring criminal prosecution of homeless people for sleeping on sidewalks when no shelters were available. Newsom told the high court last month that California could live with that ruling, but that subsequent decisions, including Grants Pass, have created an “insurmountable roadblock” for safety on city streets.

“Encampments are dangerous,” the governor’s lawyers said, regularly invaded by drug dealers and other criminals, while nearby residents and businesses “are confronted by trash, used needles, and human waste, and increased instances of open drug use, property damage, theft, and break-ins.”

Others urging the court to review the issue include the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, hundreds of businesses and local organizations in the city, and the California Business Roundtable.

In San Francisco’s filing, the city said it had spent $672 million in the past fiscal year on services for the homeless, but would need another $1.45 billion, a third of its overall budget, to shelter its entire unhoused population, the Grants Pass standard that Ryu cited in her injunction.

“The City cannot feasibly provide shelter for everyone,” attorney Steeley told the court.

The case is Grants Pass v. Johnson, No. 23-175.

---
Summary

- San Francisco and Mayor London Breed are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that requires providing shelter for the entire unhoused population before clearing homeless encampments.
- The Ninth Circuit's 2018 ruling barred criminal prosecution of homeless individuals for sleeping on sidewalks when no shelters were available.
- U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu issued an injunction in December based on the Grants Pass ruling, prohibiting San Francisco from clearing most homeless encampments.
- San Francisco argues that the rulings have hindered its efforts to address homelessness while protecting public safety.
- The city requests the Supreme Court to immediately reverse the ruling.
- Advocates for the homeless and civil rights groups argue for policy solutions, such as building more affordable housing.
- California Governor Gavin Newsom also supports overturning the ruling due to safety concerns related to encampments.
- San Francisco estimates needing $1.45 billion, a third of its budget, to shelter its entire unhoused population.
- The case is Grants Pass v. Johnson, No. 23-175.

**** it, hopefully the courts drag their feet when it comes to a ruling.

My name is nolibs and I voted for Newsom!!!!