Law Professor Micheal Dorf, at the end of every semester, publishes on the web the final exam questions for his Constitutional Law class. For the first time that I recall one of his questions relate to homelessness.
http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2018/12/con-law-exam-2018-trump-in-space-and.html#more
I have reprinted the question below but you can find it at the link above. Basically, the question asks whether or not it is legal for a city to force residents to quarter homeless people in their homes in times of emergency. FWIW I think as a constitutional matter the answer to the question is YES.
Question 2 Hughes City, Hughes, has long had a shortage of affordable housing, exacerbated by an influx of high earners due to the recent boom in the Hughes high-tech sector. On December 8, 2018, an earthquake struck Hughes. Fortunately, no one was killed or even seriously injured, but the Schwab Homes—a 1950s-era public housing complex—suffered severe structural damage that led to their evacuation and temporary closure. Approximately 8,000 people were displaced pending repairs, which are expected to be completed by mid-February 2019.
Within a day, some of the Schwab Home residents were able to find shelter with relatives both in and outside of Hughes, but many could not. The city and various nonprofit organizations quickly attempted to find them lodging in hotels, motels, B&Bs, and Airbnb’s, but due to the busy holiday season, few rooms were available. As a result, Hughes City, with homeless shelters full to capacity, needed to find emergency housing. About two thousand people were accommodated on cots set up in houses of worship and public and private schools. Still, that was not enough. Mayor Barbara Rachlinski appealed to “the kind-hearted citizens of Hughes City” to volunteer to “open their homes to their neighbors.” Some did. Still the full need was not met. Approximately 700 adults and 200 minors (86% of whom were non-white, despite the fact that the overall population of Hughes City is 53% white) remained without housing on the morning of December 10. With a winter storm coming, the city needed to provide shelter for them. The mayor proposed and by 9:30 am the city council approved the Good Neighbor Ordinance (“GNO”). It provides:
Section 1: All persons owning or renting for at least the next six months a dwelling with at least 400 square feet not currently being used for sleeping, food preparation, or a bathroom shall, by 3 pm today, notify the City that they are able to serve as good neighbors, or else pay a vacancy tax of $1,000 per day per room for each day such notice is not provided. Section 2: If the City learns of the availability of more than enough rooms to accommodate the Schwab evacuees, then a lottery shall be held to determine which rooms shall be used. Section 3: Any person whose spare room is selected for the Good Neighbor program shall receive just compensation in the amount of $0.35 per square foot per night. Section 4: If, after 90 days, repairs are not completed and alternative housing is not available for any Schwab evacuee occupying Good Neighbor housing, a second lottery shall be conducted and the remaining evacuees will be relocated.
63-year-old Karla Billingsworth lives alone in a two-bedroom apartment in the newly trendy Train Town neighborhood of Hughes City. She has a yearly lease that last renewed on September 1, and she pays $2,700 per month in rent. She sleeps in one bedroom and uses the other as a home office, where she has installed four state-of-the-art high-speed computers that she uses to make a living by “mining” bitcoins and other crypto-currencies. Billingsworth also happens to be a lawyer by training. Upon learning of the GNO (as a result of ubiquitous publicity) at 10 am on December 10, she sues Hughes City, the mayor, and the City Council in Federal District Court, seeking an immediate temporary restraining order on the ground that the GNO is unconstitutional.
Billingsworth raises objections under the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, “plus any penumbras or emanations from those or any other provisions of the Constitution that may be relevant.” Her complaint sets forth the facts as stated above and also includes an affidavit that provides: “I cannot afford to pay the tax. I am a very private person. I do not want a person of any race, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or age living in my home office, and I am especially unhappy about the likelihood of being assigned a border or boarders whose lifestyles will likely clash with mine.”
Billingsworth’s motion seeks to enjoin the GNO “on its face and/or as applied to my circumstances.” The Prayer for Relief also states: “In the event that the court denies full injunctive relief, in the alternative, Plaintiff asks that the City be permitted to assign her no boarder other than a straight white Protestant Christian cisgender female over the age of 30, as sharing her home with any other kind of roommate would violate Plaintiff’s religious convictions.”
Assume that Billingsworth makes the best arguments available. What is the likelihood that she will succeed in obtaining relief?
No comments:
Post a Comment