Robert Martin v. City of Boise
920 F.3d 584 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment bars a city from criminally prosecuting homeless individuals for sleeping on public property when they have no access to alternative shelter.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs Robert Martin, Lawrence Lee Smith, Robert Anderson, Janet F. Bell, Pamela S. Hawkes, and Basil E. Humphrey are six current or formerly homeless residents of Boise, Idaho.
- Between 2007 and 2009, each plaintiff was cited by Boise police for violating either the city's Camping Ordinance or its Disorderly Conduct Ordinance, which effectively criminalized sleeping in public places.
- At the time, Boise had three homeless shelters. One, Interfaith Sanctuary, was often full and had to turn people away.
- The other two shelters, run by the Boise Rescue Mission (BRM), are Christian-based organizations that impose rules limiting access.
- BRM's rules include strict stay limits (e.g., 17 consecutive nights for men), after which a person is barred for 30 days unless they join a mandatory, Christ-based recovery program.
- Plaintiff Robert Anderson was forced to sleep outside after reaching BRM's 17-day limit because he declined to participate in the religious program, and he was subsequently cited by police.
- BRM's shelters also have late-arrival policies that can prevent individuals from securing a bed if they first wait unsuccessfully for a spot at the Interfaith Sanctuary shelter.
Procedural Posture:
- Six homeless individuals (Plaintiffs-Appellants) sued the City of Boise (Defendant-Appellee) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Boise.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case back to the district court in a prior decision (Bell v. City of Boise).
- On remand, the district court once again granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Boise.
- The plaintiffs appealed that second grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an ordinance that criminalizes sleeping outdoors on public property violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment when applied to homeless individuals with no access to alternative shelter?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Berzon
Yes, an ordinance that imposes criminal sanctions against homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors on public property violates the Eighth Amendment when no alternative shelter is available to them. Relying on the principles from Robinson v. California and Powell v. Texas, the court concluded that the Eighth Amendment prohibits punishing an involuntary act or condition that is an unavoidable consequence of one's status. Sleeping is a universal and biologically compelled human need. For a homeless person with no access to shelter, sleeping in public is an involuntary and unavoidable consequence of their status. Therefore, criminalizing this conduct is equivalent to criminalizing the status of being homeless, which is unconstitutional. The court clarified that its holding is narrow, not precluding ordinances that bar obstructing public rights-of-way or those that regulate sleeping in particular places or at particular times, so long as homeless individuals have some place they can legally be.
Partial concurrence and partial dissent - Judge Owens
No, a claim for prospective relief that would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of prior convictions is barred by Heck v. Humphrey. While joining the majority's Eighth Amendment analysis, this opinion disagrees that the plaintiffs' claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief could proceed. A declaration that the ordinances are unconstitutional would necessarily invalidate the plaintiffs' prior convictions under those same ordinances. Under the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey and its progeny like Wilkinson v. Dotson, a § 1983 claim is barred if success would invalidate a prior conviction, unless that conviction has already been overturned. Therefore, the plaintiffs' requests for prospective relief should have been barred.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent within the Ninth Circuit, fundamentally altering how municipalities can address homelessness. It provides a constitutional basis for challenging anti-camping and anti-sleeping ordinances, shifting the legal landscape from one of broad municipal discretion to one requiring an assessment of available shelter. The ruling effectively creates a conditional right for the homeless to sleep on public property if no shelter is available, forcing cities to choose between increasing shelter capacity, designating legal sleeping areas, or ceasing enforcement of such ordinances. This holding has spurred litigation across the circuit and has influenced municipal policy on homelessness far beyond the City of Boise.
