Rochester changes feared, but not expected, following Supreme Court decision on homelessness

Jul. 6—ROCHESTER — A U.S. Supreme Court's ruling supporting an Oregon city's camping ban and related penalties isn't expected to spur local changes or court action.

Earlier this year, a split Rochester City Council banned camping on public property within city limits, following concerns about the number of campsites created by people experiencing homelessness.

While no citations or arrests have been made related to the new restrictions , City Attorney Michael Spindler-Krage said the new ordinance has provided the Rochester Police Department with a way to encourage people to avoid camping in noticeable areas.

"Overall they are seeing fewer, smaller, and less problematic encampments," he said.

The recent Supreme Court ruling involved a similar ban in Grants Pass, Oregon, where a 2018 class-action lawsuit successfully challenged the city restrictions, stating they punished people for being homeless since no other shelter options were offered.

The reach of the 2018 ruling was limited to the western states in the Ninth Circuit, but the case was frequently cited in discussions leading to the Rochester ban.

Before the Rochester City Council acted, Brian Lipford, senior leadership attorney for Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, sent Spindler-Krage a draft of the potential lawsuit , citing the potential for broader implications amid Supreme Court discussion.

With the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision to support the Grants Pass ordinance, Lipford said the local lawsuit isn't expected to be filed.

"In my opinion, the Grants Pass decision means that there is no path forward for a legal challenge to the Rochester ordinance," he said. "The Rochester ordinance's language is almost identical to the language to the Grants Pass ordinance that was determined to be constitutional.

"While I personally disagree with the decision, it is now the law of the land."

Spindler-Krage said he informed the City Council of the federal ruling and cited aspects of the local ban's implementation, which includes a requirement that camping violators be informed about available services. It also calls for issuing a warning on a first violation and states a citation cannot be issued if no other shelter options are available.

He said the Supreme Court's ruling could lead to future "tightening" of the local ban, if needed, but he said he expects the existing ordinance to remain in place with its limitations.

"I am not aware of any suggestion that the current ordinance should be changed as a result of the Grant's Pass decision," he said, adding the city's focus is on encouraging unsheltered individuals to connect with services.

The efforts and lack of citations and arrests haven't curbed concerns of those living without permanent shelter.

Corey Jacob, who is disabled and has been homeless for nearly seven years, has repeatedly expressed concerns about potential enforcement changes with the ban.

"To my understanding, they don't want to bother me, but they don't have a choice," he said of police interaction.

Jacob lives out of his van, taking care not to park at night in places where camping is banned, but he worries having his van in a city park during the day could be seen as camping under the Rochester ordinance.

City officials have said sleeping in a vehicle isn't considered illegal under the ordinance, but Jacob said he worries future officials could view the local rules differently, which could lead to arrests based on activities that are currently allowed.

Alex Hurlebaus, The Landing MN's director of social services, said it's a concern that came to mind when he learned of the Supreme Court's ruling.

He said the ordinance's guardrails against making homelessness a crime don't necessarily make it easier to connect people to services, since the camping ban has pushed people into more hidden locations, which hampers outreach efforts.

"It's to the fringes," he said of individual camping sites that still exist. "We are all the way to the north; we're all the way south. We're deep in the woods, and we're in residential. From an outreach and social services perspective, prior to the camping ban, we could at least have contact, at least we could know where we could find people."