Phoenix homelessness lawsuit carries big implications. What to know

For months, Phoenix has been wrapped up in multiple legal disputes over its handling of the growing homelessness crisis. Now, the city is caught between two separate and potentially conflicting court orders regarding its largest homeless encampment, known as "The Zone."

Legal experts disagree on whether Phoenix will be able to simultaneously comply with both orders, and it's unclear whether the city's next move could have a ripple effect on other jurisdictions throughout the Valley and the Western United States.

Here's a breakdown of the two orders, how experts are interpreting them and what they could mean for other communities.

What court orders must Phoenix comply with?

Phoenix is engaged in two separate lawsuits over how it has handled the growing unhoused population in The Zone. Rulings in both cases have directed the city to take certain actions related to the encampment.

On March 27, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney ordered the city to remove tents on public property in the encampment, which is near 12th Avenue and Madison Street. The order was issued in advance of trial in a lawsuit, Brown v. City of Phoenix, filed against the city by nearby business and property owners who claim the encampment is a public nuisance.

But in December, a federal judge ordered the city to stop enforcing camping and sleeping bans against unsheltered people as long as there are not enough shelter beds available and to stop seizing unsheltered people’s belongings without prior notice. That order is part of a separate lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona filed against the city over its treatment of unhoused people.

The city and the ACLU reached a tentative settlement in that case in March. But the details of the settlement have not yet been made public, and it's unclear whether the city will still have to comply with the December order once the settlement is finalized.

It’s also unclear what steps Phoenix will take regarding Blaney's order or whether it will appeal that decision.

“Our legal team does not see a direct conflict between the two cases. Any further legal action is under review," said Kristin Couturier, a spokesperson for the city.

The ACLU declined to comment.

Homelessness settlement: ACLU, Phoenix reach tentative deal in federal case over homelessness

What does the law already say?

A 2018 decision by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reshaped how cities in the West, including Arizona, can police unhoused people.

Martin v. City of Boise established that unhoused people cannot be criminally cited for sleeping outside on public property when there is no adequate and available alternative, such as open shelter beds. The lawsuit found doing so violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

A subsequent case, Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, upheld Martin v. City of Boise and established that if there are not enough shelter beds, unhoused people can use tents, blankets and other measures for protection against the elements while sleeping.

In late March, Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill in the Legislature that would have targeted homeless encampments by prohibiting tents and other types of shelter in streets, sidewalks and other public areas.

"We need to address Arizona's housing and homelessness crisis in a comprehensive manner," Hobbs wrote in her veto letter. "Rather than solving these issues in a meaningful way, this bill only makes them less visible."

Finding solutions: Phoenix mayor stresses indoor solutions for unsheltered people after homeless encampment ruling

Do the Phoenix orders contradict one another?

Legal experts had different views on whether the orders in Brown v. City of Phoenix and the ACLU case were directly opposed.

Gary Blasi, an expert on homelessness law and professor of law emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles, said it’s possible for Phoenix to comply with both orders.

For example, if the city provides shelter to the people living in The Zone, such as hotel rooms, tiny homes or adequate structured campgrounds, then the city could arrest people who refused those options and were still camping on the street, Blasi said. Depending on what Phoenix does, it could be a meaningful step toward solving the city’s homelessness problem, he said.

“If people sort of widen their view from, ‘This is a choice between giving people an unabridged right to sleep anywhere they want or putting them in jail and taking their stuff’… that’s a no-win situation,” Blasi said. “But there are win-win situations.”

But Will Knight, the decriminalization director at the National Homelessness Law Center who previously worked on the ACLU lawsuit, believes the orders are in direct conflict.

There are other legal issues at play besides Martin v. City of Boise, he said, such as a right to privacy that is granted in the Fourth Amendment and under the Arizona Constitution.

In Knight’s view, creating a structured campground or other one-size-fits-all solution and then arresting or citing people who refuse to go there is still against the law because those alternatives would not meet the definition of adequate housing.

“The bottom line is, there's only one solution: provide people with adequate housing, then services so they can get on their feet," Knight said. "Anything short of that is morally irresponsible, legally incorrect, and financially, fiscally catastrophic.”

Could this case have implications beyond Phoenix?

While cities throughout the federal Ninth Circuit, which includes Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Hawaii, will no doubt be watching Phoenix’s next move, it’s unclear whether they will follow suit.

Officials in Hawaii are consulting with the state’s Attorney General on the ruling but were not yet able to comment further, said James Koshiba, the governor’s coordinator on homelessness.

The Joint Office of Homeless Services serving Portland and Multnomah County does not believe Blaney's order would affect the region, spokesperson Julia Comnes said.

Officials in Los Angeles and Seattle declined to comment, while an official in San Francisco did not respond to requests for comment.

While there are some “basic guardrails to the Constitution” that cities must follow, such as not arresting unhoused people when there is no shelter available, cities have a lot of discretion as to how they comply with those guardrails, Blasi said.

And while Blaney's order could influence how other cities and states interpret similar legal issues, it does not set a binding legal precedent for them, Knight said.

'Nobody knows where they’ll go': Future of Phoenix homeless camp unclear after court order

Juliette Rihl covers housing insecurity and homelessness for The Arizona Republic. She can be reached at jrihl@arizonarepublic.com or on Twitter @julietterihl.

Coverage of housing insecurity on azcentral.com and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Arizona Community Foundation.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Phoenix facing big developments in homelessness lawsuits. What to know