(Image Credit: IMAGN) Keith Glasscock emerges from his tent at a Simi Valley encampment to talk with Jorge Escobar, a Simi Valley code compliance officer, during Ventura County's annual homeless count on Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2025.
Vallejo, CA – A recent court ruling in Vallejo, California, is challenging the ability of cities to dismantle homeless encampments, even in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that seemingly granted them greater authority.
Last month, a federal judge barred the city of Vallejo from removing the encampment of 64-year-old Evelyn Alfred, who has been living on a vacant lot for nearly two years. This ruling marks a significant development as it appears to be the first federal injunction against encampment sweeps since the Supreme Court’s decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson last June.
The Grants Pass decision overturned the precedent that cities could not punish people for sleeping outdoors if no shelter beds were available. This led many cities to believe they had free rein to clear encampments. However, the Vallejo case demonstrates that there are still legal avenues for unhoused individuals to challenge these actions.
The judge in the Vallejo case ruled that removing Alfred’s encampment would violate her right to due process under the 14th Amendment, as it would put her at risk of harm due to her age, disabilities, and lack of alternative shelter options. This ruling highlights that cities cannot simply clear encampments without considering the individual circumstances of those living there.
This case has garnered attention from legal experts and advocates, who are closely watching its implications for future challenges to encampment sweeps. It suggests that even with the Grants Pass decision, cities must still ensure that their actions do not violate the constitutional rights of unhoused individuals.
The Vallejo case also raises questions about the accessibility of shelters and housing for people with disabilities, as Alfred’s attorneys argued that the city failed to accommodate her disabilities in its attempt to clear her encampment.
This ruling could potentially lead to further legal challenges to encampment sweeps, particularly those involving individuals with disabilities or those who lack access to alternative shelter. It underscores the ongoing tension between cities’ efforts to address homelessness and the rights of unhoused individuals.
