In a significant development, the US Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would hear a case concerning the question of whether cities in Western states have the authority to prohibit homeless individuals from sleeping in public spaces.

The decision comes in the wake of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals' previous ruling against anti-camping laws in Grants Pass, Oregon. The court deemed these ordinances unconstitutional, arguing that they violated the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

In response to the ruling, Grants Pass appealed the decision, garnering support from California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is currently grappling with a homelessness crisis in his own state.

This ruling applies to a total of nine western states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. It has implications for a range of laws passed in these states targeting the presence of homeless people in public areas.

In a separate ruling, a 9th Circuit panel determined that local officials should not pass laws that prohibit homeless individuals "from using a blanket, pillow, or cardboard box for protection from the elements." This decision further emphasizes the need for a comprehensive review of anti-homelessness measures in Western states.

Former Major League Baseball star Steve Garvey, a ten-time All-Star and California Republican currently running for the US Senate, expressed his belief that addressing homelessness must emphasize compassion and practical solutions. Garvey has personally witnessed the harsh realities faced by individuals living on the streets during visits to homeless shelters in San Diego and Los Angeles' Skid Row. He called for a balanced approach that upholds public safety while acknowledging the urgency of addressing social and health-related issues that contribute to homelessness.

Governor Newsom, who has invested billions in addressing homelessness in California, expressed his hope that the Supreme Court's review would enable state and local governments to take reasonable actions to combat the crisis. Newsom's office highlighted his submission of an amicus brief in September, urging the Supreme Court to affirm that governments had the authority to address health and safety concerns associated with encampments.

The case in question draws parallels to a previous 9th Circuit ruling in Boise, Idaho, which found that penalizing the homeless for sleeping on the streets when no shelter was available violated the Eighth Amendment. The upcoming Supreme Court case has the potential to provide clarity on the legality of such measures in Western cities.

Theane Evangelis, a lawyer representing Grants Pass, emphasized the harmful consequences the existing rulings have had on those they intend to protect. Grants Pass looks forward to presenting their arguments to the Supreme Court in the upcoming spring session.

While Grants Pass argued that allowing homeless individuals to remain in encampments leads to increased crime, fires, the reemergence of medieval diseases, and environmental harm, Ed Johnson, a lawyer representing the homeless individuals challenging the ordinances, argued that the core issue at stake was whether cities could punish homeless residents simply for existing without access to shelter. He cautioned against blaming the judiciary for the homelessness crisis and urged the public to recognize the failures of years of ineffective policies.

The Supreme Court's decision to take up this case reflects the importance of determining the constitutionality of anti-homelessness ordinances in Western states. As the arguments are presented in the coming months, the court's ruling will shape the future approach towards addressing the homelessness crisis in these regions.