By Ian Bankhead.
Over the last couple of years, the United States has experienced a rapid increase in homelessness across the nation. In 2024, homelessness reached a record-high, with over 770,000 people experiencing homelessness on a given night. This is more than an 18% increase from the previous year. Within this count, more people than ever are homeless for the first time and experiencing “chronic homelessness,” meaning they have faced homelessness for a year or more, while managing a disabling condition such as severe mental illness, substance use disorder, or physical disability. Additionally, minority communities, particularly LGBTQIA+ individuals and racial minorities, are disproportionately affected.
The growing homelessness crisis has prompted varied responses from state and local governments, reflecting the complexity and urgency of the issue. While some regions have expanded social services and housing programs to address the root causes of homelessness, others have taken more punitive approaches. These conflicting strategies have sparked significant legal and ethical debates, with the spotlight falling on how cities should balance public order with the rights and dignity of unhoused individuals. This tension came to a head in the landmark case of Grants Pass last year, as the Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of the outright criminalization of homelessness.
In Grants Pass, an ordinance made public camping, more specifically, sleeping outdoors, illegal, regardless of the availability of shelter space. In a 6-3 decision, the Court found that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Simply put, the court ruled that local governments have the power to criminalize sleeping outdoors, even involuntarily, and even when no shelter space is available.
Local Government’s Call to Action
Since the decision, hundreds of municipalities across the nation have passed legislation similar to the city of Grants Pass. Legislation has ranged from limited restrictions in the certain zones such as areas close to schools, to sweeping bans on all “urban camping” in a locality. With these new laws, states have ramped up fines and arrests, leaving unhoused individuals facing criminal penalties for engaging in human survival. Such sweeping and swift bans have become particularly prevalent across localities in Arizona. With over 14,000 people experiencing homelessness in Arizona alone, localities have moved forward with the Grants Pass technique to combat the homelessness crisis through criminalization.
In just the last six months, cities statewide, such as Phoenix, Mesa, Surprise, Goodyear, and Tempe, have passed “urban camping” ordinances that fine and criminalize the creation of encampments within their city limits. Many of these ordinances also criminalize the simple act of sleeping. These local-level ordinances pose significant challenges for the unhoused community. By penalizing actions essential to human existence, city ordinances not only compound the stigma surrounding homelessness but also perpetuate a cycle of criminalization and marginalization. Not only will this community now face possible jail time and thousands of dollars in fines, but it will also face increased interactions with police. According to the Department of Justice, in its 2024 report about the Phoenix Police Department, homeless individuals already account for 37% of misdemeanor arrests and citations. Now, with increased incentives from state and local actors to “purge” the streets, the unhoused community will experience further displacement and exposure to possible harm or mistreatment by police.
The Addition of State Level Pressure
Local governments in Arizona took the first shot at criminalization, and now the state has followed suit with the recent passage of Proposition 312 (“Prop. 312”). This legislation permits property owners to seek reimbursement if they believe the state or local government is failing to adequately “address” homelessness. In practice, Proposition 312 punishes cities that do not adopt aggressive or punitive measures, creating a financial disincentive for more compassionate, resource-driven approaches.
By prioritizing punitive measures, Prop. 312 undermines efforts to tackle the root causes of homelessness and will deprive local governments of critical resources and funding. Fearing repercussions from the state, localities are compelled to enforce strict ordinances. For example, the City of Tempe has already publicly announced its commitment to strict enforcement under the new law.
Beyond the likely financial issues that will result from Prop. 312’s inefficient allocation of public resources, which will increase administrative costs and reduce tax revenue, the proposition fails to consider Arizona’s affordable housing crisis. Prop. 312 is likely to lead to aggressive encampment clearings without providing sufficient shelter or resource referrals, only exacerbating the crisis. Because Arizona has only 24 affordable and available rental homes for every 100 extremely low-income renter households, any laws that further deplete local government funds for affordable housing will fail to make meaningful change. What’s more, with potential cuts to HUD federal housing grants looming under a new administration in Washington, Arizona state agencies must take decisive action to find ways to increase funding for affordable housing, not deplete it.
Winning the Wrong Race
The State of Arizona has made its intentions clear. It wants to win this rat race. That is, the race to criminalize homelessness statewide. With the state’s recent passing of Prop. 312 and its localities’ fervent passage of ordinances criminalizing homelessness, it has cemented its stance as a major contender in this race. If Arizona wants to combat this issue effectively, it must shift its approach to one that is not reactionary but preventative. Arizona must invest in its affordable housing system and shelters. Disbanding encampments and banning sleeping does not solve homelessness; it simply displaces.
Ian Bankhead is a 2L staff writer for the Arizona State Law Journal. Prior to law school, Ian earned his B.S. in Economics and a B.A. in Business Law at Arizona State University. Ian is largely interested in public interest litigation, social justice issues, and systemic policy work. In his free time, Ian enjoys listening to music, trying new foods, and spending time with his friends.