Justices turn aside major case on homelessness law

This morning the Supreme Court issued more orders from last weeks private conference. After adding five new cases to their docket on Friday, including three cases involving disputes over access to President Donald Trumps financial records, the justices did not grant any new cases today, nor did they seek the views of the federal government.

Perhaps the biggest news on todays order list was the justices announcement that they would not weigh in on the constitutionality of a Boise, Idaho, law that bans camping and sleeping in public spaces. A group of homeless and formerly homeless Boise residents challenged the law, arguing that it violates the Eighth Amendments ban on cruel and unusual punishment when it is used as the basis for criminal penalties against homeless people who are sleeping outside because they cannot find space in a shelter. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed with the challengers, holding that the city cannot impose criminal penalties on homeless residents for lacking the means to live out the universal and unavoidable consequences of being human.

The city appealed to the Supreme Court, telling the justices that the consequences of the 9th Circuits erroneous decision have already beenand will continue to befar-reaching and catastrophic. The creation of a de facto constitutional right, the city argued, to live on sidewalks and in parks will cripple the ability of more than 1,600 municipalities in the Ninth Circuit to maintain the health and safety of their communities. The citys appeal was supported by 20 friend of the court briefs, some from cities and states with large homeless populations. The city of Los Angeles, for example, complained that the broad rationale of the 9th Circuits ruling could have an impact well beyond a homeless persons need to sleep outdoors. But today the justices denied Boises appeal, leaving the 9th Circuits decision invalidating the law in place.

The justices also denied review in Smyth v. Conservation Commission of Falmouth, a case that arose after the Massachusetts town of Falmouth rejected Janice Smyths application to build a home on a lot that she owned there. When Smyths parents, from whom she inherited the land, bought the property in 1975, there were no restrictions on their ability to develop the lot. But the town later enacted regulations that limited development on lots near wetlands, like Smyths property. As a result, by the time Smyth was ready to begin construction, the only part of her property that she could use was much too small to build the home that she had planned. The towns denial of Smyths permit application meant that the only possible uses of her land were as a playground, park or neighbors yard, reducing the value of the lot from $700,000 to $60,000.

Smyth went to court, arguing that the restrictions amount to a regulatory taking that is, even though she still owns the land, the governments regulations so restrict her ability to develop it that the Constitution entitles her to compensation. But today the justices declined to review her case.

The justices next conference is scheduled for January 10, 2020.

This post was originally published at Howe on the Court.