In Boise, Idaho, anywhere from 2,000 to 4,500 people are homeless on any given night -- but area shelters only have beds for approximately 300 and overflow or cold-weather space for approximately 400 more to sleep on mats on the floor. The lack of shelter space has led to an increased number of homeless sleeping in public places including public parks, wooded areas and alleyways. Boise Municipal Code §9-10-02 prohibits camping on streets, in parks, or in public places at any time, and §6-01-05(A) prohibits sleeping in public as "disorderly conduct." Plaintiffs in this action are all homeless individuals who are, or have been residents of Boise and cited under these two Boise Municipal Code provisions.

On October 22, 2009, plaintiffs through their counsel, Idaho Legal Services and the National Center on Homelessness and Poverty, filed this complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, against the City of Boise. The complaint alleged that the enforcement of this ordinance was targeted only to arrest the City's homeless, that these arrests are detrimental to the physical and mental wellbeing of plaintiffs and are specifically designed to criminalize homelessness and as such constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The complaint also argues that both the ordinances and the City's targeted implementation of those ordinances violate the Plaintiff's 8th amendment rights, are a violation of equal protection and due process and that the ordinances are both overbroad and void for vagueness on their face.

In response, the City sought and won a motion for summary disposition, entered by Magistrate Judge Ronald Bush on July 6, 2011. 834 F. Supp.2d 1103. Judge Bush held that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the ordinance as enforced criminalized homelessness; in addition, the claims had been mooted by subsequent clarifications of enforcement protocols by the Boise police as well as an amendment to the ordinance that provided a definition of camping.

Plaintiffs appealed and the case was reversed and remanded by the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2013. 709 F.3d 890. In an opinion by Judge Susan Black, the Court of Appeals determined that the issue of criminalization under the Eighth Amendment was a question of fact (and therefore not appropriately decided on summary judgment) and that plaintiffs' claims had not been mooted by defendants' voluntary conduct.

On remand, plaintiffs filed a more detailed complaint and discovery proceeded. Plaintiffs filed for summary judgment in April 2015. On July 6, 2015, the United States filed a statement of interest, detailing its support of Plaintiffs' position. The parties disagreed about the appropriate legal framework; the United States endorsed plaintiffs' position that the court should follow Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006), which held that enforcement of anti-camping ordinances may violate the Eighth Amendment on nights where there is inadequate shelter space available to accommodate all who are homeless. The United States government argued that the Court must consider whether conforming one's conduct to the ordinance is possible for people who are homeless.

The court has not yet adjudicated plaintiffs' summary judgment motion; the case is ongoing.

Sarah Prout - 08/25/2015


compress summary