In January, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case that could either solidify the rights of people experiencing homelessness or reinforce their criminalization. The case’s outcome could determine whether people involuntarily living and sleeping outside are committing a crime. This has the potential to worsen the homelessness crisis as criminal records often prevent people from being able to obtain housing and employment.
While the Justices ruling in favor of Grants Pass could entrench homelessness, a slew of recently passed state laws are already eroding the rights of unsheltered people. In California, the so-called CARE Court—a program signed into law in 2022 by Governor Gavin Newsom and enacted in late 2023—has made it easier for the state to involuntarily commit people experiencing homelessness to psychiatric institutions or other mental health facilities. Although all states have laws regulating and allowing involuntary commitment, the CARE Court greatly expands the ease at which a person can be committed. It does so by allowing family members, community social services, behavioral health providers, police, and first responders to initiate court-ordered mental health treatment.
Disability rights and justice organizations, homeless services agencies, and human rights organizations have denounced CARE Court as a fundamental violation of human rights.
CARE Court relies on the false assumption that people experience homelessness because of mental illness, which should be “treated” before they are allowed access to permanent housing. This throws long-proven “housing first” initiatives out the window.
For me, the issue is personal. I experienced homelessness when I was a teenager after running away from domestic abuse in my family home. Before this, I was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric ward where I was sexually abused. The trauma I experienced in that institution caused further mental health struggles down the line. I ended up being forced into a separate residential facility more than 1,000 miles away from home, disconnected from community resources, friends, and support within my local school system that could have intervened. Unfortunately, sexual and physical abuse, solitary confinement, and other forms of human rights violations are regular features of forced treatment.
Displacement caused by involuntary commitment, sometimes very far away from the place that a person calls home, has dramatic effects on their ability to connect to resources. This includes reliable public transit that can improve access to housing, food, and jobs. If people are scooped off of the streets and locked away, it allows politicians to claim they’ve solved homelessness. But this system only invisibilizes the problem rather than addressing its root causes.
People heal and recover from trauma, including the trauma of homelessness, with the support of communities and through having agency and consent. Advocates like me working within the homeless services system also know that prolonged involuntary commitment can actually jeopardize an individual’s ability to obtain housing. This isn’t only because involuntary commitment can exacerbate mental health struggles and trauma; it’s also because the federal government defines someone as “no longer experiencing homelessness” when they are in an institution for longer than ninety days. This means that an individual, although still experiencing homelessness, would be ineligible for many federally funded housing programs, like those provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Demographically, nearly 25 percent of people experiencing homelessness in California are Black despite making up only about 5 percent of the state’s population. As advocates have noted, Black and Latinx people living in California are more likely to be involuntarily committed. Additionally, people with disabilities already have the highest rate of housing discrimination complaints nationwide.
What we need instead of involuntary “care” and criminalization is to enshrine housing as an essential right. When I was homeless, “home” did not exist until I was given the privilege to take charge of my own life. California’s CARE Court—and other similar bills across the country—do the opposite and they won’t end homelessness or create homes.