Municipal Liability for Unconstitutional Homeless Ordinances 
State Failure to Comply with Disability Civil Rights Laws is driving a lot of Liability for Other Governmental Sub-Divisions


​Martin v. City of Boise
The Martin v. City of Boise (formerly Bell v. City of Boise) case has had a significant impact across the United States, particularly in the western states.

The Law Center, Idaho Legal Services Inc., and pro bono partner Latham & Watkins have been litigating this case for almost a decade, and last September major progress was made when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that it is cruel and unusual punishment to criminalize the simple act of sleeping outside on public property when no alternative adequate shelter exists.

​Boise has requested a rehearing on the ruling, but in the meantime, dozens of cities have already repealed or stopped enforcing their anti-camping laws.
Bloom v. City of San Diego
​Often when someone loses their home, they take shelter in their vehicle.

A vehicle may provide benefits that a shelter does not, such as independence from prohibitive rules and curfews or a place to store belongings. And for people with disabilities, shelters can be inadequate for many reasons such as cleanliness, access to medication, proximity to others, and more.

However, the City of San Diego was ticketing people who sought shelter in their vehicles.

The Law Center along with Disability Rights California, Bonnet Fairbourn & Balint, Dreher Law Firm and pro bono partner Fish & Richardson, filed a lawsuit in 2017 against the City of San Diego for violating the rights of people experiencing homelessness who choose to seek shelter in their vehicles.
Boyle v. City of Puyallup et al
​On September 14, 2018, six homeless plaintiffs sued the City of Puyallup, Washington, and Pierce County for destruction of their property during sweeps of their outdoor encampments.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Law Center and Perkins Coie. The complaint alleges that the City and County violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable interference with their property interests, and their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

​The Law Center, with support of Perkins Coie, later amended the complaint to include a violation of plaintiff’s right to privacy under the Washington State Constitution.
Kohr v. City of Houston
On May 12, 2017, three named plaintiffs and a putative class of unsheltered homeless individuals filed suit against the City of Houston in the Southern District of Texas.

Plaintiffs are represented by the Law Center, the ACLU of Texas, and pro bono partner, Dechert LLP.

​The complaint challenges Houston’s anti-camping and anti-panhandling ordinances and alleges that the City violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to free speech, Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment, and Fourteenth Amendment right to protection against vagueness.
NLCHP et. al. v. Greensboro
​In August 2018, on behalf of three Greensboro, North Carolina, citizens, the Law Center, together with the ACLU of North Carolina and Legal Aid of North Carolina, filed suit against the City of Greensboro for an ordinance to restrict panhandling.

The City eventually relented and repealed the ordinance and now the Law Center and partners are pushing for retrospective damages and declaratory relief on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Urban Camping Bans and State Failure to Provide Supportive Housing to SCALE for People with Disabilities  --
What they have in Common is IRREPARABLE HARM


          THINGS THAT GO TOGETHER:
  • An Overloaded Criminal Justice System
  • Urban Camping Bans, and
  • State Failure to Comply with Olmstead for People with Cognitive Disabilities to avoid INSTITUTIONALIZATION and HOMELESSNESS

Preliminary Injunction, Title II of the ADA, Irreparable Harm and Homelessness

               To the right is a Draft Table regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.  

                We'll get into the caselaw regarding IRREPARABLE HARM tomorrow.

                  When we're talking about a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, generally we're talking about an immediate fix.

                   States like Colorado have failed to do adequate Olmstead Planning for over 20 years.

                    We would conceptualize the need for:
  • WAITING LISTS moving at a "REASONABLE PACE" as a SHORT TERM LEGAL OBLIGATION
  • Olmstead Planning as a SHORT TERM LEGAL OBLIGATION, meaning we need a viable Olmstead Plan in the next 12 months [BUT OLMSTEAD PLANNING itself needs to be ON-GOING], 

                      Since Colorado does NOT have a COMPREHENSIVE & EFFECTIVELY WORKING OLMSTEAD PLAN, the STATE does NOT have a FUNDAMENTAL ALTERATION DEFENSE to an action under TITLE II of the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.

                      The NEED for an EMERGENCY FIX goes to the NEED to prevent IRREPARABLE HARM to Coloradans with Disabilities.

                        This IRREPARABLE HARM we are limiting to:
  • Homelessness
That does include HOMELESSNESS upon release from INCARCERATION.   

                         Homelessness is NOT the only IRREPARABLE HARM and the STATE should be ESTOPPED (PREVENTED) from arguing failure to raise all issues when we do NOT have the RESOURCES to do SUCH, and they are in FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF DISABILITY CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS. 
                        
Draft Preliminary Injunction Requested Remedy to PREVENT further IRREPARABLE HARM to people with disabilities:
  • IMMEDIATE Hotel vouchers and access to intensive services if desired and needed
  • Assisted Living or Nursing Home Placements pending SUPPORTIVE HOUSING Placement if desired and appropriate (supportive housing within 4 months, other placements IMMEDIATE).
  • Voluntary screening of individuals who are Homeless and/or being released from Incarceration for disability.  If at great risk of institutionalization due to disability, IMMEDIATE hotel voucher and services.

Jensen Class Action Complaint & Request for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief


               Minnesota's Landmark Jensen case really built on prior caselaw and 2011 US Department of Justice Guidance on Olmstead, requiring:
  • Measurable Goals
  • Reasonable Time Frames, and
  • Funding to Support the Plan
                By and large, states have NOT complied -- even as they have done "something."
                 If it didn't matter, nobody would care.  IT MATTERS.
                 In the Cognitive Disability arena public policy is a mess with no clear CONTINUUM of CARE and the supportive housing, intensive services, and placements that are available are woefully inadequate to meet the need.
                  Not surprisingly this creates a lot of IRREPARABLE HARM to people with COGNITIVE DISABILITY who are consigned to Homelessness and Incarceration as the Treatment Modalities of Last Resort as a RESULT of the STATE"S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH OLMSTEAD.

NOTE:  We will be compiling CHECKLISTS for Olmstead Complaints and Requests for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief both with respect to Procedure and Substance.

This is for INFORMATIONAL & EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.  We warrant NOTHING and DISCLAIM all LIABILITY.  Use at your own risk.

Finally, we will be working to get out articles to outside publishers on our National Report and Double V proposal in the coming weeks.