Advocates Sue Cities Over Shelter Access
Advocates are suing cities like Denver, Grants Pass, and New York City for failing to provide accessible shelter to disabled individuals experiencing homelessness, arguing that current policies violate legal protections and worsen the crisis.
Cities Are Failing Their Legal and Moral Duty to Provide Accessible Shelter for All—Especially for People with Disabilities
Imagine being asked to leave your home because a medical injury temporarily prevented you from cleaning. Or being unable to access your home because you need a wheelchair to get around.
In a recent lawsuit, some unhoused folks in Denver said these examples are more than hyperbole. They are harsh realities they must face when trying to access the city’s shelter system.
The lawsuit was filed by advocacy group Housekeys Action Network Denver along with the law firm Newman McNulty and the Brooklyn Law School’s Disability and Civil Rights Clinic. It alleges that Denver has repeatedly violated federal and state law by not providing adequate access to shelter for people with disabilities who are experiencing homelessness.
“While the Mayor raced to house 1,000 people for the cameras, he was ignoring the pleas of Denver’s disabled houseless residents who were repeatedly being forced out of shelters and onto the streets simply because of their disabilities,” said Andy McNulty, one of the attorneys with Newman McNulty.
“Denver’s repeated refusal to provide our houseless and disabled neighbors with shelter because of their disabilities not only violates the law; it runs counter to basic human decency,” he continued.
The lawsuit was filed at a time when advocates across the U.S. are pushing back against attempts to prohibit people experiencing homelessness from accessing shelter.
Legal Challenges Against Anti-Homeless Policies Grow Nationwide
Invisible People recently reported on a lawsuit that seeks to prohibit city officials in Grants Pass, Oregon, from evicting a sanctioned encampment where several people with disabilities reside. The lawsuit claims the attempts to close the encampment do not meet state law that requires ordinances to be “objectively reasonable.” Closing the camp would also cause irreparable harm to the people living there, the lawsuit claimed.
“Putting the lives of people with disabilities at risk in the dead of winter because they don’t have housing is cruel and illegal,” said Jake Cornett, CEO of Disability Rights Oregon, one of the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “Without adequate shelter space available, forcing a person in a wheelchair or someone with a chronic illness to pack and move their belongings daily is not just impossible, it’s inhumane.”
Advocates in New York City have also sued local officials for implementing rules that make it harder for people experiencing homelessness to access shelter. The rules also discriminate against migrants seeking shelter, the lawsuit claims.
The new rules require people to live on the streets for at least six months before they can be placed in a shelter. People seeking safe haven beds must also have documented significant mental health, physical illness, or substance abuse issues with city workers before receiving a referral.
The complaint was filed by the Urban Justice Center-Safety Net Project, which offers free legal clinics to unhoused New Yorkers, and the Legal Aid Society’s Homeless Rights Project.
“Forcing unhoused individuals to jump through a series of needless bureaucratic hurdles before they are given access to safe shelter is cruel, regressive, and—particularly in the freezing winter months—extremely dangerous,” Legal Aid Society attorney Kathryn Kliff told City Limits.
The Impact of Grants Pass v. Johnson on Homelessness
These lawsuits illustrate the harm caused by the Grants Pass v. Johnson decision. The ruling states that cities are not required to provide adequate shelter before enforcing anti-homeless laws, making it easier for local governments to fine, arrest, or displace unhoused people.
The decision not only punishes people for their poverty but also discourages cities from investing in long-term solutions like permanent supportive housing.
Instead of addressing the root causes of homelessness, many cities now rely on punitive measures that make it harder for unhoused individuals to find stability. Research has consistently shown that housing, not criminalization, is the key to ending homelessness.
Policies that limit shelter access force more people onto the streets, where survival becomes even more dangerous. Many cities criminalize basic activities that unhoused people must do to survive, including:
- Sitting or lying down in public spaces
- Loitering or “loafing”
- Eating or sharing food
- Asking for money or panhandling
- Sleeping in cars or outside
Instead of helping, these laws make it harder for people to secure housing and employment. Criminal records, fines, and constant displacement push unhoused individuals further into poverty. Studies show that encampment sweeps and restrictive shelter policies only increase the risks of injury, illness, and death among homeless populations.
Arrests Will Never Solve Homelessness — Housing Will.
Handcuffs will never solve homelessness. The pandemic proved that we need to rethink housing in the United States. It also showed that many programs designed to address homelessness are rooted in law enforcement rather than social services.
Tell your representatives you support revamping how your city addresses homelessness. Handcuffs do not get anyone closer to stable housing. Instead, we must focus on compassionate solutions, the first step to ending homelessness.
Robert Davis
Robert is a freelance journalist based in Colorado who covers housing, police, and local government.
canisgallicus 