The federal legal services program exacerbates the problem of
homelessness by requiring government to tolerate irresponsible conduct.
Legal services maintains that the homeless have a constitutional right
to panhandle anywhere and anyhow they see fit, to sleep on public sidewalks
and even camp out on government property. To this end, they have sued cities,
states and even private charities.
Legal Aid Society Claims Begging Protected by Constitution
In 1990, the Legal Aid Society of New York City tried to overturn a
law prohibiting begging on New York’s subways on the grounds that begging
is free expression protected by the First Amendment. The transit authority
adopted the law in response to widespread complaints from the system’s
3 million riders that they were tired of being harassed and intimidated
by aggressive panhandlers who often resorted to “unwanted touching” and
detainment to extort money. However, Legal Aid argued that prohibiting
panhandling is unconstitutional because all panhandlers are trying to do
is “communicate” a particular social or political message about their plight.
The Second US Court of Appeals rejected this argument saying “that most
individuals who beg are not doing so to convey any social or political
message” and that “the only message we are able to espy as common to all
acts of begging is that beggars want to exact money from those whom they
accost.”
See Young v. New York City Transit Auth., 903 F.2d 146 (US App.
Ct.) 1990
Evergreen Legal Services Challenges Seattle Panhandling Law
In 1994, Evergreen Legal Services tried to overturn a Seattle ordinance
prohibiting aggressive panhandling. It seems pedestrians were having to
run a daily gauntlet of intimidation, derogatory remarks, and the residue
of urine and alcohol while store owners were complaining of having to remove
human waste from their doorsteps every morning. To address the problem,
the city council passed several ordinances, one of which prohibited people
from lying or sitting on public sidewalks between 7 am and 9 pm. The law’s
purpose was to eliminate the safety hazard the scores of beggars posed
to pedestrians and to preserve the economic health of the commercial areas.
Evergreen Legal Services claimed this was unconstitutional because it “chills
and restricts” beggars First Amendment rights to free expression. Evergreen
tried to argue that the mere sight of unkempt beggars is constitutionally-protected
conduct because it communicates a message about that person’s need for
assistance and society’s failure to address that need. The court rejected
the argument because it would mean that every public act of the homeless
would have to be interpreted as protected expression.
See Roulette v. City of Seattle, 850 F. Supp. 1442 (US
Dist. Ct.) 1994
Legal Services Says Homeless Have Right to Live on Public Property
This year, the California Supreme Court rejected legal services' attempt
to require cities to allow the homeless to camp out on public property.
The case resulted from a 1992 lawsuit filed by Orange County Legal Aid
against the city of Santa Ana for preventing the homeless from living on
public property. Hundreds of homeless had camped out on the city’s Civic
Center Plaza forcing government employees going to and from work each day
to negotiate a maze of harassing beggars, rats, shopping carts, and grounds
strewn with human waste. Citing the need to maintain public areas in a
clean and accessible condition, Santa Ana banned camping on all public
property. Orange County Legal Aid sued the city for violating the homeless’
constitutional right to travel. They reasoned that prohibiting the use
of public property for camping might mean the homeless would have to go
somewhere else to live. The court rejected the argument because the purpose
of the law was to forbid the unauthorized use of public property and could
not in any way be unconstitutional because of an incidental impact
on a person’s right to travel. The court also ruled that an individual,
homeless or not, does not have a fundamental right to camp on public property.
See Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 892 P.2d 1145 (Cal. Supr. Ct.)
1995
Legal Services Sues Private Charity for Homeless
In 1992, Westchester Legal Services of New York sued a private charity
for expelling an otherwise homeless man for not abiding by the charity’s
rules. Helping Out People Everywhere (HOPE) is a non-profit agency that
provides for the homeless and other people with special needs. In 1991,
HOPE admitted David Deich, an HIV-positive homeless man, into its program.
He was provided a bedroom and required to abide by the rules of
the counseling program which included having no overnight guests. However,
Deich refused to abide by the “no overnight visitor” policy. HOPE moved
to expel him at which point Westchester Legal Services intervened. They
argued that Deich, as a homeless person, has a constitutional right to
stay in the shelter of his choice for as long as he likes. A New
York court rejected Westchester’s argument.
See Helping Out People Everywhere v. Deich, 155 2d 707 (NY City
Ct.) 1992
Legal Services Claims Constitutional Right to Housing
In 1993, Legal Services of New Jersey sued the state, arguing
that the state is obligated to provide "emergency" housing assstance for
as long as the clients need it. New Jersey provides emergency housing assistance
to low-income individuals for a minimum of 17 months during which time
the recipients can seek long-term housing. Legal Services claimed that
the state constitution’s guarantee of the right to life and happiness includes
a right to shelter which government is obligated to provide in perpetuity.
The court rejected the claim saying that the guarantees of due process
and equal protection have never meant a government obligation to finance
social services.
See L.T. v. N.J. Dept. of Human Services, 264 N.J. Super. 334,
1993