In the recent Supreme Court ruling in Johnson v. Grants Pass, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that public agencies do not need to provide alternative shelter before enforcing laws on public camping, overnight vehicle camping and personal storage. The Court clarified that the U.S. Constitution’s 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, was inapplicable and not violated by enforcement without alternative available shelter. However, SCOTUS mentioned that the defense of necessity might still be relevant in certain instances, although further detail was not provided in the ruling.
Just a few weeks later, another court case involving a Southern California city, People v. Wood, addressed the defense of necessity in a situation where the city was enforcing its public camping and personal property storage laws through a civil nuisance abatement case, in which they were seeking a court order (injunction) to stop the ongoing violations. The ruling requires a court to consider the defense of necessity when “weighing the equities” in deciding whether to issue such an injunction. This means the court needs to look at whether the person had an unavoidable necessity for breaking the law when the public agency is asking for an injunction. The ruling emphasized that in injunctive relief cases, the court “sits in equity” and must balance the legal interests of both sides, including necessity, in determining whether to issue an injunction concerning public camping-related laws.
Additionally, the court of appeals noted that even though shelter was available for some days, the individual’s specific medical issues and refusal of long-term shelter options had to be considered.
This case highlights that courts must now consider the defense of necessity when deciding whether to issue civil injunctions against homeless individuals.
This ruling does not affect SCOTUS’s ruling in Grants Pass, which was decided on another legal basis and by the Nation’s highest court. However, it does highlight that while public agencies can now regulate and enforce their public camping-related ordinances as they determine appropriate within the law, they must be ready to respond to a claim of necessity with facts and evidence. Cities will benefit from updating their policies, procedures and practices to reflect this.
