The Washington State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state’s constitutional right to movement does not include the right to live in a vehicle parked on public property.
Homeless advocates decried the ruling, which sent a lawsuit brought by a homeless man back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for a new trial.
“This ruling is not only inhumane, it allows the arrest, fines and seizure of vehicles of people simply trying to survive, but it exacerbates the homelessness crisis,” Antonia Fasanelli, executive director of the National Homeless Law Center, said in a statement to Fox News Digital.
RVs and tents lined up along two blocks in Seattle, Washington on July 22, 2022. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Amid ‘uncertainty’ following Supreme Court ruling, some Democrats call for reform of homeless camping laws
The case is one of the first legal battles to be decided since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that cities can ban people from sleeping outdoors.
The legal battle began in 2019, when the city of Lacey passed an ordinance banning RVs and other large vehicles from parking on streets and in parking lots for more than four hours a day. Violators were subject to a $35 fine and the impoundment of their vehicles, city officials said. Court ruling It was released last week.
In their 13-page ruling, the justices noted that the law includes a process by which visitors can obtain permits to park for long periods in designated areas, so long as the applicant is “actively involved in social service work.”
Authorities ordered Jack Potter, a military veteran who was living in a Lacey City Hall parking lot, to move his truck and 23-foot travel trailer, which he did, and moved to nearby Olympia, the state capital.
However, the following year, he sued the city, asserting his right to travel within the state guaranteed by the Washington State Constitution, and further arguing that this right includes a “right to reside.”
‘We want our homes back’: Washington homeowners live out of van, delinquent tenants list house on Airbnb
In this July 2022 file photo, notices are posted to people living in RVs in Seattle informing them of an upcoming operation to clear homeless camps. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Crisis in the Northwest: A trip inside Oregon’s largest homeless camp with a former drug dealer
“The right to travel includes the right to reside — the right to remain where you are,” the ACLU of Washington wrote in an amicus brief last year.
of Discussed briefly They argued that the city’s ordinance amounts to “expelling people whom the City of Lacey’s public officials deem undesirable.”
The city argued that the law was within the city’s right to regulate parking and applied equally to everyone in Lacey.
The state Supreme Court agreed, ruling that “Mr. Potter has failed to show that the City of Lacey’s parking ordinance violates his state constitutional right to residence, namely, his right to reside in the type of residence he chooses.”
“This backward-looking approach is consistent with last month’s similarly harsh U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Johnson v. Grants Pass, which allowed lawmakers to punish people with fines and jail time if they don’t have a place to sleep,” Fasanelli said.
The law center called on the Biden administration and Congress to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in rental assistance, public housing and other homelessness prevention services, arguing that “the richest country in the world” is able to provide such services.
Click here to get the FOX News app
Potter’s case is before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which will decide whether Lacey’s ordinance violates federal travel rights or the Fourth Amendment’s protection against government seizure. Seattle Times report.
Lacey city officials declined to comment on ongoing litigation.
Potter’s lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
