## Facts

- Six current or formerly homeless Boise residents were cited under two ordinances: a camping ban covering streets, sidewalks, parks, and public places, and a disorderly conduct provision barring occupying, lodging, or sleeping in places without permission.
- Plaintiffs alleged enforcement effectively criminalized sleeping or resting in public when they had no alternative place to sleep.
- Boise had homeless shelters, but plaintiffs alleged they were sometimes unable to use them because shelters were full, they had exceeded stay limits, or they declined mandatory religious programming.
- During the litigation (2014), Boise amended its ordinances to state they would not be enforced against homeless persons on nights when no shelter had an available overnight space.

## Issues

1. Whether any plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek prospective declaratory and injunctive relief, and whether those claims were moot after the 2014 amendments.
2. Whether *Heck v. Humphrey* barred (a) retrospective relief (e.g., damages, expungement, reimbursement of fines) and (b) prospective declaratory and injunctive relief.
3. Whether enforcing Boise’s ordinances against homeless individuals with no access to alternative shelter violated the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment for the City.
- The court held that two plaintiffs had standing to pursue prospective relief and that their claims were not moot because there was a genuine factual dispute about a credible threat of future enforcement on nights they were denied shelter for reasons other than capacity.
- The court held *Heck* barred most requests for retrospective relief that would necessarily imply the invalidity of prior convictions, absent invalidation of those convictions.
- The court held *Heck* did not bar plaintiffs’ requests for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at future enforcement.
- On the merits, the court held the Eighth Amendment precludes enforcing ordinances prohibiting sleeping outdoors against homeless individuals who have no access to alternative shelter.
- A separate opinion concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing *Heck* should also bar the requested prospective declaratory and injunctive relief because it would necessarily imply the invalidity of prior convictions.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Eighth Amendment, government may not impose criminal punishment for conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of an involuntary status, where punishing the conduct effectively punishes the status.
- Criminal enforcement of public sleeping/camping prohibitions violates the Eighth Amendment when applied to homeless individuals who lack any realistic access to shelter.
- The Eighth Amendment rule is conditional and narrow: it restricts criminal penalties for sleeping/camping in public when shelter is unavailable, but does not categorically bar regulation of camping or public space and does not require a city to provide shelter.
- Article III standing for prospective relief can exist, and mootness can be avoided, where plaintiffs show a credible risk of future enforcement notwithstanding policy changes, including denial of shelter for reasons other than bed capacity.
- *Heck v. Humphrey* generally bars retrospective relief that would necessarily imply the invalidity of an outstanding criminal conviction, but does not automatically bar prospective challenges directed at future enforcement.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Boise could not constitutionally punish homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors on public property when they had no realistic access to shelter, while allowing limited prospective relief to proceed and barring most retrospective claims under *Heck*.


Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019)