ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – The U.S. Supreme Court has recently decided that enforcing generally applicable bans on camping on public property is not “cruel and unusual punishment.” The decision applies to a case in initiated in Oregon, but has implications for Albuquerque’s ability to tackle encampments.
In the case, Grants Pass v. Johnson, the City of Grants Pass had an ordinance prohibiting camping on public property and parks. The ordinance allowed the city to fine campers and even jail repeat offenders that return to the parks. Some argued that that was unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court says the fines are not cruel and unusual. The implication is that similar ordinances in New Mexico would likely be interpreted in the same light, that Albuquerque can fine homeless individuals if they violate city ordinances.
“I know there will be mixed reactions to this ruling in our community, so I want to be clear—the City will continue to do everything in our power to get people the help they need and to deal promptly with illegal encampments,” Mayor Tim Keller said in a press release.
Recently, interactions with encampments have been primarily handled by Albuquerque Community Safety, rather than the police department. You can read more about the police department’s role in enforcement in this KRQE story.
Some city leaders say the recent Supreme Court decision means Albuquerque can start more enforcement actions against unauthorized homeless encampments.
“We didn’t need a supreme court decision to enforce our own city laws,” City Councilor Dan Lewis (District 5) told KRQE. “The mayor has used this as an excuse for a lot of years, and it’s time to enforce our own laws.”
Others agree that the court decision opens the door for enforcement, but that walking through that door might not be the right choice for the community. “I have mixed feelings. On the plus side, it clears ambiguity. It allows the cities to create their own policies to address issues, I think that’s a good thing,” Councilor Joaquin Baca (District 2) said. “Simultaneously, it opens up the door to criminalize homelessness and that doesn’t help anyone.”
Councilor Nichole Rogers (District 6) worries this decision will cause city leaders to become more punitive when it comes to encampments: “I’m not surprised based on the makeup of the Supreme Court. But definitely this makes it harder for municipalities to, I think in my opinion, to come up with a solution that is humane and just for folks who are suffering being unhoused.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico (ACLU-NM) also responded to the Supreme Court decision, calling on the city to focus more on investing in housing and support services.
“It’s difficult to conceive of a crueler example of punishment than imposing fines and imprisonment on someone for the fundamental human need of sleeping. Punishing people for merely trying to survive in public spaces does nothing to tackle the root causes of homelessness. This approach only entrenches the cycle of poverty and criminalization, which is both inhumane and ineffective. We call on local New Mexico governments to abandon these damaging practices that deprive unhoused individuals of their inherent dignity and to invest in meaningful solutions like affordable housing and comprehensive support services. Arresting our way out of homelessness is not a viable strategy. Here in New Mexico, we believe our state constitution provides broader protections than its federal counterpart and we will continue to push back against municipalities that criminalize people for simply existing in public spaces,” Maria Martinez Sanchez, the legal director at ACLU-NM, said in a statement.
The debate over enforcement of no camping rules is compounded by the fact that homelessness isn’t easily solved by one solution, according to University of New Mexico School of Law Professor Joshua Kastenberg. He spoke about the issue on the KRQE News Podcast, where he noted that “removing homeless encampments removes the encampment, but it doesn’t really remove people . . . their encampment may be destroy, but they’re going to go somewhere. Can they be forced into a shelter? Well, I mean, look, you have enough shelters, and if those shelters are safe, that’s a difficult question to answer because there are a lot of ‘ifs’.”
Currently, staff from the City of Albuquerque respond to over 50 camps per day, the city says. Those responses include welfare checks, and offering a list of referrals to services like medical care, shelters, and behavioral health services. The city says that process will continue.
