Overview of Martin v.
City of Boise
Presented to the City of Stockton Ad-
Hoc Committee on Homelessness
ATTACHMENT A
Martin v. City of Boise(9th Cir. 2019)
• ISSUE: Whether the Eighth Amendment prohibiting
cruel and unusual punishment bars a city from
prosecuting people criminally for sleeping outside on
public property when those people have no home or other shelter to go to.
• HELD: An ordinance violates the Eighth Amendment
where is imposes criminal penalties on homeless
individuals for sleeping outdoors, on public property,
when no alternative shelter is practically available to them.
ATTACHMENT A
Martin v. City of Boise(9th Cir. 2019)
LIMITATIONS
No obligation to provide shelter:
“Our holding is a narrow one. . . . ‘[W]e in no way dictate to the City that it must provide sufficient shelter for the homeless, or allow anyone who wishes to sit, lie, or sleep on the streets . . . at any time and at any place.’” Inapplicable where there is shelter available:
“Naturally, our holding does not cover individuals who do have access to adequate temporary shelter, whether because they have the means to pay for it or because it is realistically available to them for free, but who choose not to use it.” Restrictions permitted even when no shelter available:
Time/place restrictions: “Even where shelter is unavailable, an ordinance prohibiting sitting, lying or sleeping outside at particular times or in particular locations might well be constitutionally permissible.”
Structure restrictions: “So, too, might an ordinance barring the obstruction of public rights of way or the erection of certain structures.”
ATTACHMENT A
Martin v. City of Boise(9th Cir. 2019)
Open questions:
• What does it mean for shelter to be “available?”
• Where must the shelter be located?
• What kind of shelter must be available, and what accommodations must it offer?
• Whether and under what circumstances do a shelter’s policies render it unavailable for a person experiencing homelessness?
• When must a person experiencing homelessness have access to shelter?
• How must shelter availability be measured?
ATTACHMENT A
Subsequent Cases
• Shipp v. Schaaf (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2019) 379 F.Supp.3d 1033 • Aitken v. City of Aberdeen (W.D. Wash. July 2, 2019) 393 F.Supp.3d 1075 • Gomes v. County of Kauai (D. Hawaii Aug. 26, 2020) 481 F.Supp.3d 1104 • Blain v. Cal. Dept. of Transportation (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2022, No. 3:22 - cv-04178-WHO) ___ F.Supp.3d ___ [2022 WL 2919646]
• Wills v. City of Monterey (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2022, No. 21-cv-01998-EMC) ___ F.Supp.3d ___ [2022 WL 3030528]
• Johnson v. City of Grants Pass (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2022, Nos. 20 -35752, 20-35881) ___ F.4th ___ [2022 WL 4492090]
ATTACHMENT A
Subsequent Cases
• General takeaway from later cases: The key question under Martin is whether ordinances collectively criminalize sleeping anywhere in a city, or whether ordinances merely criminalize sleeping in certain areas within the city.
• Johnson v. City of Grants Pass:
While Martin prohibited a city-wide ban on sleeping outdoors, it did not allow free rein on erecting structures and the like to facilitate that sleeping. City of Grants Pass’ ordinance didn’t prohibit sitting/sleeping, but use of bedding or similar protection from the elements. Court found the prohibition violated Martin, as Martin implicitly permits “articles necessary to facilitate sleep,” with specific reference to “bedding, sleeping bag, or other material used for bedding purposes.”
ATTACHMENT A