Proponents of the city of Austin’s repeal of its ban on homeless encampments and other vagrancy laws have tried to justify their support by pointing to a recent federal court decision out of Idaho. Not only is this Ninth Circuit opinion not binding in Texas but the court’s rationale would not apply to the situation in Austin. Under both constitutional and common-law principles, Austin’s prior homeless regulations were lawful and would be upheld by courts if challenged.
In Martin v. City of Boise, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel found the Idaho city’s public camping ordinance unconstitutional because it decided that the Constitution “prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.” As other members of the court recognized, this holding took the extraordinary step of “creating new constitutional rights.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]