By The Herald Editorial Board

As happens with almost all cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, Monday’s questioning of opposing lawyers regarding the rights of those struggling with homelessness and how local governments address the consequences of homelessness brought plenty of speculation of how the court might rule.

A ruling isn’t expected until later in June or July, but most media observers seemed to be of the notion that — regarding Grants Pass v. Johnson — the court’s conservative majority would side with the small city in southwest Oregon and uphold its law allowing it to cite homeless people for sleeping in public.

But regardless of the ruling and how it parses the case’s nuances — including whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment should make a distinction between status and conduct — what will matter most is the response that follows from local governments in choosing one of two paths:

Criminalizing homelessness and pushing those affected to another city or out of sight; or

Continuing to work toward solutions that prevent more people from falling into homelessness and lifting those who have, back into stable lives.

The case resulted from a 2013 law adopted by Grants Pass — a city of 40,000 with an estimated 600 people living unhoused as of 2018 and 2019 — which made it illegal to sleep outside in public, using a blanket or sleeping bag.

The city council’s intent — at least that of its council president, Lily Morgan, at the time — was clear: “The point is to make it uncomfortable enough for them in our city so they will want to move on down the road,” Morgan said at a meeting in March 2013.

Three homeless residents of Grants Pass challenged the law, arguing it violated the Eighth Amendment, citing a 2018 ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Boise v. Martin that a law in Idaho’s capital city violated the rights of homeless people by citing them for camping outdoors when the city didn’t have enough shelter available. This is where status vs. conduct enters in: Is homelessness an issue of status or of conduct that can be criminalized?

After Grants Pass appealed a lower-court ruling against it, the 9th Circuit prohibited Grants Pass from using citations to enforce its no-sleeping ordinance. Grants Pass then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Most local governments have thankfully not limited their response to citations. Even Grants Pass officials last week, while their lawyers prepared to argue their case before the Supreme Court, approved a special use permit for a new pallet shelter facility with a portable restroom and shower within the city limits; for 15 people.

Local governments do have a more-than-reasonable interest in the health and safety of the public and of those struggling with a lack of shelter and affordable housing, not to mention the enjoyment of public parks that were meant for recreation and a city’s livability and not as a default location for an encampment.

But a finding for Grants Pass could potentially encourage more cities to seek the easiest and cheapest option to dealing with homelessness, that of sending those struggling with it “down the road” and making them some other city’s problem.

That won’t reduce the number of those struggling with homelessness and could even expand those numbers. Some 650,000 were suffering with homelessness nationwide as of 2023, a 12 percent increase over the previous year. About 22 percent of those experiencing homelessness are considered “chronically homeless,” meaning they have been without shelter for a year or more; the balance experience homelessness temporarily or sporadically, a large percentage of whom could be thrown into chronic homelessness with the added burden of a citation or arrest.

Citing those who are homeless — fining them, then adding penalties for nonpayment — will only add to their poverty, making their access to affordable housing, education, work and stability all the more of a obstacle-packed task. For others, in particular those struggling with addiction, the citations will not serve as motivation to find shelter or housing — which may or may not be available — just an additional indignity to absorb. Escalated to incarceration, the criminalization of homelessness adds even greater barriers to finding housing, employment and security and the potential loss of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits.

The response of cities and other local governments to the Supreme Court’s ruling cannot be a rush for each to get their own anti-camping laws in place; or make existing laws more punitive than those of the next closest city.

And it’s not as if there aren’t success stories of local governments that have chosen to address homelessness. Local efforts were recently discussed during a panel discussion sponsored by The Herald.

Houston has been recognized as a leader in addressing homelessness, starting with a program led by the city’s first special assistant to the mayor for homeless initiatives from 2013 to 2016. Mandy Chapman Semple, now working with a consultant group, led an effort in Houston that was able to permanently house more than 23,000 people, with 90 percent remaining housed long-term. Houston’s homeless count was reduced 60 percent between 2012 and 2016. (More recently Houston’s homeless population grew, but by a smaller percentage than the national rate.)

Chapman Semple, who recently criticized the issue’s reduction to a constitutional issue rather than a focus on solutions, told Governing magazine that the most effective remedies to homelessness involve the housing-first approach, going directly to those who are unhoused, getting them into permanent housing and providing the support and services they need to remain stably housed.

Another homeless advocate, Laura Riley, director of the clinical program at University of California, Berkeley’s School of Law, in a recent New York Times guest essay, recommended homelessness prevention programs, including housing subsidies; supportive services for those exiting behavioral health treatment and correctional centers; and pathways for those with criminal records to clear records of nonviolent convictions to improve their chances at housing and employment.

And, Riley said, simply building more affordable housing.

“We all want the same thing,” Chapman Semple said. “We all want that person off the street, so you have to build a system that can do that.”

In a matter of days, the results of Snohomish County’s Point-in-Time Count, taken of the homeless population in January, will be announced, followed in the coming weeks by the Supreme Court’s ruling.

During questioning Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts asked a rhetorical question as to the issues of homelessness and how to resolve them: “Why would you think these nine people are the best people to judge and weigh those policy judgements?”

We’ll answer that: They are not. But that leaves local governments, assisted by state and federal governments, to make the right choice between effective solutions or simply kicking the can — and people — “down the road.”