September 9, 2024
A coalition of homeless individuals residing along a deserted land near the Chehalis River in Washington faced eviction orders from the city of Aberdeen in 2019. These residents contested the eviction, arguing they had nowhere else to go. Citing the 2018 ruling of the US Court of Appeals in Martin v. Boise, which prevents cities from closing encampments without sufficient shelter provisions, they succeeded in securing alternative shelter after a legal battle.
However, the situation changed dramatically when another group of homeless individuals from Grants Pass, Oregon, who had been fined and displaced due to lack of shelter, took their case to the Supreme Court. In June, the Supreme Court overturned Martin v. Boise, stating that imposing fines and short jail stints on homeless individuals was not "cruel and unusual" since it had become a common practice nationwide.
This decision triggered a series of actions to dismantle homeless encampments across the United States. California, under Governor Gavin Newsom, took prompt action post-ruling. Governor Newsom, representing a supposedly liberal standpoint, argued that homeless encampments posed dangers, subsequently directing local authorities to begin demolishing such dwellings.
Cities like Palm Springs and Sacramento have since been systematically evicting homeless residents from encampments, oftentimes with minimal notice and with inadequate support for those forced into shelters. These shelters frequently lack essential facilities and impose stringent regulations, causing significant distress among the displaced.
The ripples of the Supreme Court ruling have spread beyond California. There have been numerous reports of similar evictions in various states including Washington, New York, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. This pattern of evictions has only intensified following the court’s decision.
Historically, the Supreme Court’s ruling echoes 17th-century English law, particularly the enclosure movement where peasants were displaced from common lands, leading to mass homelessness and the enforcement of vagrancy laws. The present-day situation, where homeless individuals face criminalization or mandated shelters with religious and other restrictive conditions, mirrors that historical predicament.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who penned the majority opinion in the Grants Pass case, dismissed the inadequacies in the existing shelter provisions and upheld the necessity of criminalization as a tool for forcing homeless individuals to accept available services. This stance has faced severe criticism for its lack of empathy and democratic values.
Concurrently, cities with insufficient resources to address homelessness have taken to enforcing laws to force homeless individuals out of city limits. The underlying goal, as revealed by Grants Pass officials, is to create a hostile environment for the homeless, compelling them to leave.
The United States has a deep-seated history of forced relocations, from the displacement of Indigenous populations to the implementation of vagrancy laws. In this capitalist landscape, where a small fraction of the population controls the majority of the land, millions struggle to secure housing.
Recent figures from HUD indicate over 650,000 homeless individuals in January 2023, though actual numbers are suspected to be significantly higher. Estimates suggest post-pandemic homelessness could be between 8 to 11 million people nationwide. Despite the surge, the possibility of providing adequate housing for all remains viable, as demonstrated by international examples such as Brazil’s Landless Workers Movement, which successfully secured land tenure for numerous families through constitutional reforms.
The Supreme Court’s decision has already shown a significant impact, leading to increased evictions and heightened struggles for homeless populations. This situation underscores the urgent need for systemic changes to address housing inequality and calls for a reconsideration of land distribution policies in the United States. The ongoing efforts of civil rights and homeless advocacy groups suggest that, despite setbacks, movements for housing justice continue to gather strength.
