吃瓜大本营

In September 2023, a group of nine residents and business owners sued in Utah state court against Salt Lake City, alleging that the city had created both public and private nuisances by allowing unhoused community members to live and sleep in local streets, sidewalks, and parks. The plaintiffs claim that the City created these nuisances by refusing to enforce a broad range of ordinances against unhoused individuals. Those ordinances include prohibitions on camping in parks or on public grounds; obstruction of sidewalks with encroachments or by standing, lying, or sitting for more than two minutes, obstruction of highways and streets, and public alcohol possession and use. Violations of these local ordinances carry potential misdemeanor or infraction penalties. Plaintiffs asked the trial court to enter a declaratory judgment and preliminary and permanent injunctions directing the City to abate 鈥渁ny and all nuisances caused by the unhoused鈥� on any City property, not just the immediate areas where plaintiffs reside.

The ACLU, ACLU of Utah, The National Homelessness Law Center, Crossroads Urban Center, and the Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association (SLLDA) filed an amici curiae brief opposing the plaintiffs鈥� request for an emergency injunction. Attorneys for the ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and Trone Center for Justice, along with attorneys from the ACLU of Utah and SLLDA, are counsel for amici.

The brief explains that the preliminary injunction should be denied because, among other flaws fatal to plaintiffs鈥� arguments, the injunction would be adverse to the public interest. It explains that the requested injunction would likely, if not certainly, result in violations of unhoused people鈥檚 rights to due process, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and excessive fines, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment or unnecessary rigor in the process of arrest or conviction. The brief also explains why plaintiffs鈥� requested relief would make the problem of homelessness worse, not better.

After oral argument, the case was dismissed with prejudice in favor of the ACLU. The City's motion to dismiss was granted based on the public duty doctrine. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the public duty doctrine does not apply and that the Court should hold that 鈥渦nlawfulness鈥� in the public nuisance context has a broad meaning including the quiet use and enjoyment of land. Plaintiffs asked the City to abate 鈥渁ny and all nuisances caused by the unhoused."

In September 2024, the SSCI, filed an amicus brief in the Utah Supreme Court. This case involves the question of whether a city-wide homelessness crisis constitutes a 鈥渘uisance鈥� to be abated under Utah state law, as the plaintiffs in that case allege. Our brief explains why this lawsuit threatens the constitutional rights of unsheltered Utahns and warns that treating people experiencing homelessness as a 鈥渘uisance鈥� ignores the gravity of the problem.