|
Supreme Court Denies Review of Martin v. Boise
On December 16, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition by the City of Boise to review the case Martin v. Boise. Martin is a landmark ruling issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in response to the city of Boise enforcing its Camping and Disorderly Conduct Ordinances against people experiencing homelessness.
A panel of the 9th Circuit held that the City cannot “criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless—namely sitting, lying, or sleeping on the streets” in the absence of adequate alternatives. The 9th Circuit further held that “as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.”
After the Martin ruling, the City of Boise petitioned the entire 9th Circuit to rehear the case en banc. When the 9th Circuit rejected the City’s petition, the City petitioned the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court denied the City’s writ of certiorari. Though this denial does not extend the 9th Circuit’s ruling into other jurisdictions, it informs the national conversation surrounding the ruling. We are thrilled with the Supreme Court’s decision not to review Martin v. Boise and hope to see other districts apply its rationale.
“Despite the doom and gloom of the appellants and those who joined them in filing amici, this ruling is a win for everyone,” said Eric Tars, Legal Director at the Law Center. “Cities can still address encampments on their streets, they just have to do it in constructive ways that reduce harm and actually help end homelessness. Public health and public safety are best maintained by making sure everyone has an adequate place to live, not by putting homeless people in jail or giving them fines and fees they can’t pay.”
Newly Confirmed Executive Director of USICH
On December 10, 2019, Robert Marbut was confirmed as the new Executive Director of USICH. He was recommended to replace Matthew Doherty, a staunch advocate for people experiencing homelessness who was forced to resign. The Law Center is concerned with positions that Marbut has previously taken regarding homelessness. For example, he has discourage cities and individuals offering food or money to people living on the streets, and has advocated for forcing homeless people into “campuses” under threat of arrest.
Marbut’s appointment aligns with the Trump Administration’s plan to crack down on homeless encampments in California via executive order. We expect the Trump Administration to unveil its executive order soon and will update as we know more. We discussed the initial news of the executive order in the September 2019 edition of the Housing Not Handcuffs newsletter.
Despite these concerns, the Law Center will continue to push for a housing-first approach to homelessness and hopes to continue working in pursuit of affordable housing with USICH. We will fight against any approach, by USICH or the Trump Administration, that promotes the criminalization of homelessness. The Law Center expects to meet with Robert Marbut sometime prior to January 15.
Expungement / Sealing Can Mean One Less Barrier to Housing (Contributed by Victoria Palacio, State Advocacy Coordinator at Legal Action Center)
Earlier this year, Tennessee passed a bill that would eliminate the filing fee for expungement applications, making it easier for those with criminal records to have their records expunged. This was a huge victory for Tennesseans, and HNH members No Health = No Justice have noted that such legislation can be particularly helpful for homeless individuals in the state who struggle to access housing and other opportunities due to involvement in the criminal legal system.
As many as one in three Americans have a criminal record of some form. Having prior involvement in the criminal justice system can lead to barriers in every aspect of life including securing employment, education, and housing, just to name a few. In fact, people who have been incarcerated are 10 times more likely to experience homelessness than the general population. However, simply having a criminal record can affect one’s housing as well. Federal laws give local housing agencies significant leeway to decide whether to bar individuals with criminal records from public housing premises. Many public housing authorities deny eligibility for federally assisted housing based on an arrest that never led to a conviction. Private landlords also impose blanket criminal record bans on tenant applications. Additionally, background checks that are often incomplete, outdated, and sometimes inaccurate lead to people being excluded from both the public and private housing markets.
One option states have to combat these practices is to enact legislation that allows arrests that did not lead to conviction and convictions after a period of time to be sealed or expunged. These reforms can mitigate the housing discrimination experienced by many individuals with criminal records—largely low-income individuals from communities of color.
Many states have begun to recognize the need to seal or expunge certain criminal records. However, often times, financial and legal hurdles make it difficult for people to access this remedy. We celebrate Tennessee’s win, and we hope other states will consider limiting public access to criminal record information as a strategy for lowering barriers to successful reintegration into society, while protecting public safely and reducing homelessness.
Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2019
On November 18, 2019, the House of Representatives approved the “Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2019” (RDRA) in a bipartisan 290-118 vote. RDRA is important legislation that offers financial protections for low-income victims of presidentially-declared disasters, including persons who are housing insecure or homeless. The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty worked with the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s Disaster Housing Recovery Coalition to develop these reforms.
RDRA improves recovery for the most vulnerable people by permanently authorizing the Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery program, which is often the only recovery funding available to extremely low-income communities affected by disasters. By permanently authorizing the program, RDRA ensures that disaster relief funds reach victims most in need. For example, RDRA requires funding plans to prioritize the one-for-one replacement of destroyed or damaged public or federally subsidized housing units.
RDRA promotes coordination in recovery and discourages discriminatory funding allocation by requiring data sharing and reporting. It requires agencies involved with disaster relief share all recovery related data and requires HUD to make all the data it collects during disaster recovery publicly available. This HUD data includes racial and geographic data, to prevent funds from being allocated in a discriminatory fashion. Though RDRA is still pending Senate approval, its bipartisan passage in the House is a strong step forward.
|
