CORRESPONDENCE - CS -1A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

19 and eating are human necessities. If criminalization of sleeping on the streets violates the Eighth Amendment when there is no alternative shelter, then surely criminalization of panhandling would face the same charge when there is no alternative source of money to purchase food. Sarah Gerry, Note, Jones o. City of Los Angeles: A Moral Response to One City's Attempt to Criminalize, Rather than Confront, Its Homelessness Crisis, 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 239, 248-49 (2007). In sum, it is clear that, unless it is checked, the logic of the decision below will expand widely, posing a profound threat to the protection of even the most basic health and safety standards within the Ninth Circuit. Unsurprisingly, a number of plaintiffs have already filed lawsuits relying on the panel opinion, and undoubtedly there are more to come.12 The issue, then, is not whether States within the Ninth Circuit will be able to "criminalize homelessness"; the issue is whether those States will be able to exercise their fundamental regulatory prerogatives. In addition, review of this decision 12 See, e.g., Shipp o. Schaaf, No. 19-cv-01709-JST, 2019 WL 1644401 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2019); Hung u. Schaaf, No. 19-cv- 01436-CRB, 2019 WL 1779584 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2019); Quintero o. City of Santa Cruz, No. 5:19-cv-01898-EJD, 2019 WL 1924990 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2019); Aitken o. City of Aberdeen, No. 3:19-cv- 05322-RBL, 2019 WL 2764423 (W.D. Wash. July 2, 2019); Complaint, Rios et al. o. Cty. of Sacramento et al., No. 2:19-cv- 00922-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2019); see also, e.g., Blake et al. u. City of Grants Pass, No. 1:18-cv-01823-CL, 2019 WL 3717800 (D. Or. Aug. 7, 2019) (certifying class of homeless people in a challenge to city's sleeping and camping ordinances).