Could the Supreme Court make it easier for Bay Area cities and beyond to clear homeless camps?

Against the backdrop of growing public frustration over a deepening homelessness crisis, the U.S. Supreme Court could soon make it easier for cities in the Bay Area and across the West to clear homeless encampments — even when beds aren’t available in shelters.

Since 2018, federal court rulings have prevented local governments in nine states from arresting or fining people for living on the street if they have nowhere else to go. As a result, when officials move to shut down encampments on public property, they are generally expected to offer shelter or housing. But few cities have the resources to move all their unhoused residents indoors.

On Monday, the high court heard oral arguments for an appeal challenging the rulings. The much-anticipated case could have sweeping implications for the rights of homeless people nationwide.

In California, which as an estimated 181,000 homeless residents — nearly a third of the nation’s unhoused population — officials are anxiously awaiting the outcome of the case, expected by the end of June. Those supporting the appeal, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, contend lower court rulings have hamstrung efforts to close unsafe tent and vehicle camps and made the crisis worse. They’ve asked for more flexibility in clearing and managing encampments.

“The Supreme Court has an opportunity to strike a balance that allows officials to enforce reasonable limits on public camping while treating folks with compassion,” Newsom said Monday on social media.

The main question before the court is whether broad no-camping bans targeting homeless people in Grants Pass, Oregon, amount to cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. During Monday’s hearing, justices appeared split along ideological lines. The court’s three liberal justices seemed inclined to deny the city’s appeal and strike down the bans, while the conservative majority appeared sympathetic to the notion that such “difficult policy questions” should be left up to local officials instead of judges.

“Why do you think these nine people are the best people to judge and weigh those policy judgments?” asked Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative justice.

In recent years, homeless advocates have seized on the precedent set by the federal court decisions to sue cities throughout the Bay Area over plans to clear encampments. In San Jose and Oakland, judges halted efforts to remove hundreds of people from massive encampments near the San Jose Mineta International Airport and along Wood Street in West Oakland until city officials could provide shelter for those living in the camps.

More recently, a federal court has limited San Francisco’s ability to clear encampments until the city can add more beds for its estimated 4,397 homeless residents who live outdoors or in vehicles. That case is on hold until after the Supreme Court’s decision.

Frustrated by the ongoing injunction, Newsom and San Francisco officials filed separate legal briefs in the Grants Pass case with the Supreme Court. They say they have no intention of punishing people simply for being homeless, but contend judges have gone too far in ordering local governments to offer “adequate shelter” and other services before clearing encampments. According to San Francisco’s brief, homeless residents often turn down help, “making it difficult if not impossible for city workers to provide one-size-fits-all solutions.”

At the federal courthouse in San Francisco on Monday, around 60 homeless advocates gathered to protest the appeal, arguing a ruling for Grants Pass would clear the way for cities to “criminalize homelessness” and lead to more “inhumane” sweeps. Civil rights groups have also accused Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed of throwing their support behind the appeal to deflect responsibility for alleviating homelessness and adding desperately needed affordable housing.

“No matter what the Supreme Court decides, unhoused people and allies will continue to organize to protect the most vulnerable members of our communities and to uplift housing as a human right,” Talya Husbands-Hankin, a protest organizer with Love and Justice in the Streets in Oakland, said in a statement.

In San Jose, Mayor Matt Mahan echoed calls for more flexibility in dealing with encampments, explaining the city “has lacked legal clarity to require everyone to come in off the streets.”

Over the past year, he’s pushed to expand no-encampment zones throughout the city while also aiming to add a thousand “quick-build” cabin shelters and tiny homes for many of its roughly 4,441 residents lacking shelter — a contentious strategy he describes as a fast and compassionate way to combat homelessness. Even as federal courts have halted sweeps, they’ve held cities are allowed to “limit camping or sleeping at certain times and in certain places.”

Officials in Oakland, which also has a policy restricting encampments, did not immediately respond to questions about the case.

While Mahan hopes for a change in the status quo, he made clear that sweeps alone are not a workable solution.

“We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that abatements without an offer of shelter or a treatment bed simply move an individual from one neighborhood to another,” Mahan said in a statement. “The formula for ending homelessness is to stand up basic and dignified shelter and treatment options, and require that people use them when available.”