Chico council orders another amicus brief for Supreme Court case

CHICO — The City of Chico is jumping back into the fight against Martin v. Boise — and, by extension, Warren v. Chico — with another court filing in support of another jurisdiction’s Supreme Court case.

In closed session at Tuesday night’s meeting, the City Council voted to authorize the city attorney’s office to draft an amicus brief or contribute to another for Grants Pass, Ore. v. Johnson, a challenge filed by that city to a ruling by the Ninth District Court of Appeals. At issue: Whether enforcing laws against camping on public property violates the “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibition under the Eighth Amendment.

The Ninth District Court ruled it does if the campers have no access to shelter. That decision in Martin v. Boise shaped the judicial landscape for the Warren v. Chico settlement that, in turn, shapes the city’s approach to homelessness.

Chico councilors voted 6-1 Tuesday for a new amicus curiae (or “friend of the court”) brief now that SCOTUS has agreed to take the Grants Pass case.

“The previous amicus brief argued in favor of SCOTUS hearing the matter,” City Manager Mark Sorensen explained Wednesday, referencing a November filing. “Now, consideration is being given to the concepts of filing an amicus brief on the legal merits of the case or joining an amicus brief filed by others not yet known. The city attorney was directed to pursue these two concepts.”

Councilor Addison Winslow cast the dissenting vote and the next morning criticized both the council’s decision and its process.

“Regardless of your standing on the issue, it is an insult to the public and a cowardly withdrawal from our duty as public officials to hold this discussion in private,” Winslow said. “There is no legal requirement that we restrict this to closed session, and no one seriously believes that our litigation in Warren v Chico is compromised by having an open and honest public discussion about the costs and repercussions of our actions lobbying the Supreme Court.

“Chico has made genuine progress in addressing homelessness precisely because the court required us to assure shelter is available for people. If the Supreme Court removes this requirement and Chico awakes to find our leadership has learned nothing, we risk backsliding into a barbarous and ineffective project of criminalization of the status of being unhoused.”

The cost of the first amicus brief, including filing fees, ran roughly $30,000.

Councilor Sean Morgan supported the decision on the brief, saying Wednesday: “Let’s pray the Supreme Court sides with Grants Pass and puts an end to the lunacy — and I think Chico needs to do whatever it can to facilitate that.”