Supervisor Mitchell’s Statement on LA County Submitting Amicus Brief in the Johnson v. City of Grants Pass Pending Supreme Court Case

LOS ANGELES, Calif. — Today, the LA County Board of Supervisors voted to submit an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Johnson v. City of Grants Pass case urging the Supreme Court to rule upholding the prohibitions on both criminal penalties and civil penalties for unhoused individuals considered camping in public spaces while clarifying the application of Martin v. City of Boise. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the question whether the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. An amicus brief assists the courts by offering additional, relevant information or arguments the court may want to consider before making their ruling. Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell presented an amendment to narrow the County’s arguments for its amicus brief and provided the following statement:

“It’s important for Los Angeles County, the largest county in the nation, to make clear our support for protecting basic human rights in our fight to end homelessness. This is why I fully supported the motion presented by Supervisors Barger and Hahn for the County to submit an amicus brief in the Johnson vs. City of Grants Pass case before the Supreme Court. The amendment I presented today, that was accepted by the Board of Supervisors, was about continuing to fight for the best outcome for our unhoused residents and communities impacted by the homelessness crisis, until the final decision from the Supreme Court is made. This amicus brief does that without supporting the City of Grants Pass’ position to criminalize the unhoused. My amendment insisted that our position would state to the court that we oppose criminalizing homelessness through criminal or civil penalties. And seeks to get clarity on when we can remove bedding that has been dumped. If we don’t ask for this clarity, our silence would not be a protest but naiveté as the Supreme Court is going to make a ruling. This is the clarity my amendment seeks. I understand that we must be strategic and that it’s not ideal to have to ask this important question to this Supreme Court, but this our current reality.”

“The Supreme Court will make a decision on this case this year. What we can do now is uphold the tenets of the Civil Rights Movement, and not stop fighting. We can continue to advocate to prevent the criminalization of poverty while protecting the safety and health of the public until the final decision is made.”