Now with more authority to outlaw public camping, what will Pierce County leaders do?

The U.S. Supreme Court decided last month that local governments have the right to implement and enforce policies that ban camping in public — rules generally meant to discourage homeless people from sleeping in parks and other public places.

Many elected officials in Pierce County have said the court’s decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson will not impact policy in their respective jurisdictions. Others, including in Lakewood, have moved to implement policies aimed at deterring homelessness, using language from the court’s decision.

Here’s what we know about how some local jurisdictions intend to implement the Grants Pass decision:

Pierce County

In Pierce County, officials agree that steps need to be taken to address homelessness and an affordable-housing crisis, but they’re split on how to go about that.

Pierce County Executive Bruce Dammeier, a Republican, told The News Tribune last week he opposed policy decisions that could result in more “tent cities,” like an emergency ordinance recently defeated in a partyline vote that would have made it easier to build shelters in unincorporated areas.

Dammeier said instead of building more temporary shelters, the county should focus on building more long-term, stable housing, like the proposed 280-unit Pierce County micro-village for the chronically homeless he has pushed to build in Spanaway.

Dammeier said he doesn’t think the Grants Pass v. Johnson decision is going to have much effect on what the county is doing in unincorporated Pierce County to clean the rights of way and address illegal encampments. The challenge is that some people aren’t accepting services, “and building a bunch more [temporary shelters], if people aren’t going in, that’s not the right solution,” he said.

“Our goal is always to get people into treatment, into the services that they need, and get them well and restored and back into a dignified life. That’s always our focus, and we’re going to continue to do that,” Dammeier said. “We haven’t been allowing illegal encampments — we’re not going to allow them — it’s not going to be any different in that respect. Some of our cities may change how they approach it [after this ruling]. It does give additional tools in my mind to get people to accept services.”

Pierce County Council member and Marty Campbell, a Democrate, is chair of the council’s Select Committee on Homelessness. The committee was established by the council in 2023 to focus on solutions to the rising homelessness crisis in the region .

Campbell told The News Tribune he does not expect the Grants Pass v. Johnson decision to have any impact on the work the County Council is doing to address homelessness. He also said he does not believe camping-ban policies are an effective solution.

“Criminalizing homelessness is not the answer, and taking vulnerable people to jail for the simple act of existing will only [exacerbate] the issues that led them to homelessness in the first place,” Campbell wrote in a statement to The News Tribune. “The criminal justice system should not be the place we look to in order to help stabilize people and get them off the streets.”

Campbell said he feels a better solution to the crisis would be to prioritize a spectrum of services and supports to those experiencing homelessness.

“People are dying on our streets, there’s been a 23% increase year over year in homelessness, so we need housing built now. It will take us at least a decade to build affordable housing to capacity to meet the need,” Campbell stated. “This requires solutions on multiple fronts — emergency housing, safe parking, affordable housing, behavioral health and substance use supports, among many others. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution.”

Tacoma

In September 2023, the former Tacoma city attorney signed onto an Amicus Brief written to the Supreme Court regarding Grants Pass v. Johnson. The brief, written on behalf of the city, argued municipalities should have leeway to enforce bans on camping in public spaces.

The City of Tacoma implemented its own camping ban in 2022.

Tacoma Municipal Code 8.19 , passed in October 2022, prohibits camping and the storage of personal belongings in a 10-block radius around temporary shelters and all public property within 200 feet of Tacoma’s rivers, waterways, creeks, streams and shorelines. Under the ordinance, violators face fines of up to $250 and up to 30 days of imprisonment.

City spokesperson Maria Lee said as of July 12 only one arrest had been made related to the ordinance since its implementation in 2022.

“The recent Supreme Court decision does not require the City to change its existing code, so it does not impact Tacoma’s current ordinance on restrictions on use of public property,” Lee told The News Tribune. “I must emphasize that the City has always worked to address unauthorized encampments with a ‘services first’ approach and will continue to do so.”

Lakewood

On Monday, the Lakewood City Council passed an ordinance to prohibit public camping , mirroring the language of the Grants Pass v. Johnson decision. The ordinance gives Lakewood police officers the power to remove people sleeping outside on public property and their personal belongings if they don’t vacate after 24 hours. Last summer Lakewood banned overnight camping on public property within 15 miles of Lakewood City Hall and also banned the use and disposal of “dangerous drugs” in public. Violating either of those ordinances could result in criminal penalties and fines.

Passage of Monday’s ordinance came after nearly two hours of debate and a split vote. Lakewood Mayor Jason Whalen called it a “tough love” approach to homelessness that gives police more tools to address the issue. Not everyone on the council agreed it was the best approach, and council member J. Trestin Lauricella expressed concerns about the council effectively “criminalizing people who are experiencing homelessness and don’t have anywhere else to go.”

Puyallup

The City of Puyallup has codes prohibiting camping and the storage of personal property in parks and public spaces .

Puyallup Mayor Jim Kastama did not respond to calls or emails from The News Tribune asking whether the Grants Pass v. Johnson decision would have any impact on policy discussions in the city.

Gig Harbor

Gig Harbor does not currently have any municipal codes to prohibit public camping .

When asked how the Supreme Court decision would impact policy discussions in Gig Harbor, Mayor Tracie Markley told The News Tribune the city is evaluating the court’s ruling, and staff would be working with the City Council on what they might want to take action on.

“We have had continued success in helping those experiencing homelessness and will endeavor to respond with compassion and hopeful placement into shelters until an established city policy is put in place,” Markley wrote in an email to The News Tribune.

Homelessness Advocates

Rob Huff is a spokesperson for the Tacoma/Pierce County Coalition to End Homelessness — a regional coalition of community organizations, service providers and government agencies that collaborate to end homelessness.

On July 10, The News Tribune published a letter written by Huff opposing the Supreme Court’s decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson.

“The Tacoma Pierce County Coalition to End Homelessness opposes any ordinance that focuses on punitive approaches to homelessness, because fining and threatening to jail people for trying to survive outdoors does nothing to end homelessness,” Huff told The News Tribune in a July 15 email.

Huff said he and his colleagues at the coalition believe the county and local governments should focus on creating solutions to homelessness rather than policies that “simply push human beings to another neighborhood or another community.”

Huff told The News Tribune policies that focus on fines and arrests are a “sure sign that a community is throwing its hands in the air and giving up.”

“These policies essentially create a harassment system that makes those who are homeless and who don’t have an option to move into temporary shelter even more vulnerable to things like hot and cold weather,” said Huff. “This leads to worse health outcomes, more desperation, and a greater potential for death for those who are forced to live with only what they can carry with them at any given moment.”

Background on Grants Pass v. Johnson

The case originated from Grants Pass, Oregon, a town of roughly 39,000 people. After the city passed policies to penalize public campers, a lawsuit was filed in 2018 on behalf of homeless people in the area .

The suit alleged that “the City of Grants Pass has a web of ordinances, customs and practices that, in combination, punish people based on their status of being involuntarily homeless.”

In that case, Mark D. Clarke, federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, ruled that because Grants Pass lacks adequate shelter for its homeless population, it could not punish people who have no access to shelter for the act of sleeping or resting outside as it would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

“Let us not forget that homeless individuals are citizens just as much as those fortunate enough to have a secure living space,” Clarke wrote at the end of his opinion.

The city appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The legal question petitioned: “Does the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling. On Aug. 22, 2023, Grants Pass appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the high court agreed to hear the case less than five months later.

In the court’s opinion delivered on June 28, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, ”Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.”