吃瓜大本营

In recent years, federal courts have relied on what鈥檚 called the 鈥減olitical question doctrine鈥� to refuse to review legal claims of wrongdoing, even those involving egregious constitutional harm. Using the political question doctrine, federal courts have turned away claims from people seeking justice on the theory that court review of those claims would embroil the courts in matters best left to the political process. Whether state courts should adopt a parallel political question doctrine鈥攁nd thus limit access to justice for people whose civil rights and liberties have been violated鈥攊s an open question in many states. This case involves the scope of Utah courts鈥� authority to review important constitutional claims.

Hundreds if not thousands of Salt Lake City, Utah, residents have nowhere safe to stay and must live and sleep in public. This case鈥攂rought by a small group of residents and businesses鈥攊nvolves the question whether this citywide homelessness crisis constitutes a nuisance under Utah state law. It also presents the question whether Salt Lake City can be ordered to clear encampments, forcibly relocate people who are unhoused, and enforce vague and overbroad laws criminalizing homelessness where doing so will likely, if not certainly, violate unhoused people鈥檚 state and federal constitutional rights. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and Trone Center for Justice and Equality, along with the ACLU of Utah and the Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association, represent amici curiae in the trial court who oppose the plaintiffs鈥� nuisance claims and their request for relief.

This case is about whether a city government鈥檚 selective and discriminatory refusal to permit a family-friendly drag event in a public park violated the event organizers鈥� First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourteenth Amendment鈥檚 guarantee of equal protection, and related provisions contained in the Utah Constitution.