One of WA’s strictest homeless camping bans can stand, court says

The King County Superior Court ruled this month that Burien’s homeless camping ban does not violate the state constitution, a blow to advocates who hoped Washington’s courts could restore protections to homeless people that the U.S. Supreme Court had taken away.

Last June, the Supreme Court ruled that punishing people for sleeping outside did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, even if there weren’t shelters or alternative places to go. More than 140 cities across the country created or expanded camping bans in the months that followed, including at least seven in Washington.

Burien was one of them. The South King County city tightened in February what was already one of the most restrictive camping bans in the state, creating an outright prohibition on living outside in the city.

Several homeless people living in Burien along with advocates filed a lawsuit against the city, claiming its camping ban violated the state constitution’s protection from cruel punishment, which they argued provided greater protection than the federal Eighth Amendment.

Burien argued that its punishment for breaking the city’s camping ban, a misdemeanor that could be dismissed if someone participates in a court-sponsored diversion program, did not amount to cruel punishment. The King County Superior Court agreed and dismissed a litany of other arguments the lawsuit brought.

Judge Michael Ryan wrote in the court’s summary judgment that the decision was not an endorsement of the wisdom of Burien’s camping ban.

“That is not the proper role of this court,” Ryan wrote. “Ruling in the Plantiffs’ favor will not fix this crisis, (and) may well exacerbate it by limiting a potentially effective tool from policy makers, and would be a departure from settled law.”

The city of Burien released a statement saying that much work remains to be done to address the crisis of homelessness and that it looked forward to returning its attention to these immediate challenges.

The Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness, an advocacy group that was a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a written statement that it was disappointed but not deterred.

“Threatening people with arrest, fines, or jail time for sleeping in public or otherwise trying to survive is cruel, unjust, and unreasonable,” Executive Director Alison Eisinger said. “I am profoundly troubled that the court seems to interpret our state Constitution as unable to offer protections to people who are too poor to have a place to live.”

The Northwest Justice Project, a nonprofit law firm representing the plaintiffs, said it would be consulting its clients about appealing the court’s decision.

“This decision contradicts fundamental constitutional principles and ignores the reality that Burien provides insufficient shelter options for its unhoused residents and none at all for single men,” lead attorney Scott Crain said.

The decision could have implications for other Washington cities as well.

ACLU of Washington filed a lawsuit against Spokane for its camping ban in August based on a similar argument. But Jazmyn Clark, the organization’s Smart Justice Policy program director, said the Spokane case rests on a different set of facts and legal arguments.

“While the recent ruling in the Burien case raises important legal questions, it won’t impact our lawsuit against Spokane,” Clark said.