The decision was in response to a 2009 lawsuit by six homeless plaintiffs against the city of Boise, Idaho regarding the city's anti-camping ordinance.[1] The ruling held that cities cannot enforce anti-camping ordinances if they do not have enough homeless shelter beds available for their homeless population.[2][3] It did not necessarily mean a city cannot enforce any restrictions on camping on public property.
In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the case, leaving the precedent intact in the nine Western states under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington),[4] but in 2024, the Supreme Court effectively overturned Martin v. Boise in its City of Grants Pass v. Johnson decision denying the extension of cruel and unusual punishment to anti-camping ordinances.
History
In 2009, after a local homeless shelter in Boise closed, six people were cited for violations of a city ordinance that made it illegal to sleep on public property. Homeless plaintiffs represented by Howard Belodoff filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of anti-camping ordinance that punish homeless individuals that cannot sleep elsewhere.[1]
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision striking down anti-camping ordinances when applied to homeless individuals still allowed state and local governments to enact time, place, and manner restrictions on the population's ability to camp on public land.[5]
In 2021, the city settled the lawsuit by agreeing to spend $1.3 million for additional shelter spaces, compensate $435,000 for the plaintiffs' attorneys fees, amend ordinances on public sleeping, and train police officers not to arrest homeless individuals whenever local shelters are full. People who are offered appropriate available shelter space, but refuse to go could still be cited, under the settlement.[6]
In 2024, the Supreme Court effectively overturned Martin v. Boise in its City of Grants Pass v. Johnson decision denying the extension of cruel and unusual punishment to anti-camping ordinances.[7]
^Clift, Theresa; Yoon-Hendricks, Alexandra (December 17, 2019). "U.S. Supreme Court won't hear Boise homeless ruling. Here's what it means for Sacramento". The Sacramento Bee. "Some would argue it's very broad and would be difficult for a local county or jurisdiction to balance the needs of homeless residents and other residents," county counsel Lisa Travis said. One way to achieve that balance might be to approve a new policy outlining the specific locations and times of day a homeless person could sleep on public property. The Boise decision does not explicitly ban making these kinds of restrictions. For example, the city of Sacramento allows homeless to sit or sleep on the ground outside City Hall at night, but not during the day.
