Legal expert: DA Thien Ho has filed a frivolous lawsuit against the city of Sacramento | Opinion
It is virtually unheard of for a district attorney to sue a city government. But it is outrageous for a district attorney to do so when the city government is acting in accord with the United States Constitution. That, though, is exactly what has occurred in Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho’s astounding suit against the City of Sacramento for not adequately solving the problem of encampments of unhoused individuals.
No one disputes the serious problem of homelessness in Sacramento and throughout the state. As many studies have demonstrated, the central problem is that there is not sufficient affordable housing in California and the result is a large number of people living in encampments on the streets. Sadly, no city in California has found a solution, despite a strong commitment to do so.
Opinion
The complaint filed by Ho details the many ways in which homelessness plagues Sacramento. But it is impossible to see how Ho’s suit will do anything to help. It certainly won’t do anything to increase housing or social services. It won’t create more shelters. It won’t find other places for the unhoused to live.
It is clear from the complaint that what Ho wants is for the court to order the city to clear the many encampments throughout the city and to enforce laws against the unhoused. The complaint, for example, says, “Why pass laws if you are not going to enforce them? Is there a mandate from city hall to stop law enforcement from enforcing the law?”
What Ho completely ignores is that the United States Court of Appeals has been explicit that there are constitutional limits on enforcing laws against the unhoused when there are not adequate alternatives. The government cannot constitutionally clear the encampments or make it a crime for people to sleep in public unless there are sufficient shelters available. Nowhere does Ho assert that such shelters exist.
In Martin v. City of Boise, in 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Eighth Amendment -- which outlaws cruel and unusual punishment – “prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.” In July, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed this. In Jonhson v. City of Grants Pass, the court again held that the government cannot punish people – criminally or civilly – for being unhoused.
These cases are clearly correct. People must live and sleep somewhere. If there are not shelters, then they will live and sleep on the streets. They cannot constitutionally be prevented from doing so if there is no other alternative.
It is unclear what Ho would like the city to do with the encampments that he describes in detail in the complaint. If the city were to dismantle them, where would those who live in them go? There are not shelters for them. There is no other place for them to go. Nor does Ho suggest any solutions for the city to pursue that would provide housing.
Likewise, it is unknown what Ho would like the court to do. Ho’s suit asks the court to issue an injunction against the City of Sacramento. But what can the court order the city to do that would solve the problem of homelessness? The court can’t build more housing or more shelters or provide more social services. It is impossible to see how Ho’s suit will do anything to help.
It is thus hard to see Ho’s suit as anything but a publicity stunt at the expense of city officials who recognize the problem of homelessness and are working hard to find solutions, however elusive. The Superior Court should dismiss Ho’s suit as frivolous. The focus should be on supporting city officials, not harassing them with a lawsuit, as they look for humane and constitutional ways to help solve the problem of homelessness in Sacramento.
Erwin Chemerinsky is the dean and a professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law.
