King County Court backs Burien's sweeping camping ban as constitutional
This story was originally posted on MyNorthwest.com
Burien's camping ban, one of the strictest in the state, will not be struck down by the King County Superior Court as the ban does not violate the state constitution.
The City of Burien prohibits sleeping outside within city limits. Initially, this ruling applied only between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. and was punishable only if there was available room at shelters. But after a 5-2 vote in late January, Burien's city council ruled that sleeping outside is prohibited at all times.
The decision shortly followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case that ultimately led to the decision on whether cities can prohibit sleeping in public spaces. The Supreme Court ruled that cities can, stating that it does not violate the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
At least seven other jurisdictions in Washington created or expanded camping bans in the last year, according to The Seattle Times, including Auburn, Bremerton, Chelan County, Lakewood, Washougal, Wenatchee, and Spokane Valley. Approximately 140 cities have enacted similar regulations nationwide.
'The City of Burien agrees with the Court that much work remains to be done to address the crisis of homelessness and looks forward to returning its full attention back to these immediate challenges facing Burien,' the City of Burien stated in a prepared statement. 'City staff, along with the Burien City Council, have responsibly used all tools available to help the most vulnerable in our community.'
Among the city's goals is to expand the co-response program partnership with the King County Sheriff's Office and to establish a dedicated contract with a service provider to make more space available within emergency overnight shelters.
The City of Burien wants $1 million from King County to support the work performed by Mary's Place and Mercy Housing, which provides shelter for homeless individuals. The city also wants to update its housing and zoning regulations to ensure that STEP (emergency shelters, transitional housing, emergency housing, and permanent supportive housing) housing is available throughout Burien.
The Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness revealed it is 'disappointed—but not deterred—by the court's decision.
'We took up this case to affirm that all people should enjoy protection from injustice and cruelty under our state Constitution,' Alison Eisinger, the executive director for Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness, said. 'Threatening people with arrest, fines, or jail time for sleeping in public or otherwise trying to survive is cruel, unjust, and unreasonable. I am profoundly troubled that the court seems to interpret our state Constitution as unable to offer protections to people who are too poor to have a place to live.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump shows that loyalty is all that matters to him
Last week, the Court of International Trade delivered a blow to Donald Trump's global trade war. It found that the worldwide tariffs Trump unveiled on 'Liberation Day' as well his earlier tariffs pretextually aimed at stopping fentanyl coming in from Mexico and Canada (as if) were beyond his authority. The three-judge panel was surely right about the Liberation Day tariffs and probably right about the fentanyl tariffs, but there's a better case that, while bad policy, the fentanyl tariffs were not unlawful. Please forgive a lengthy excerpt of Trump's response on Truth Social, but it speaks volumes: 'How is it possible for [the CIT judges] to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?' What other reason could it be? I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions. … In any event, Leo left The Federalist Society to do his own 'thing.' I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!' Let's begin with the fact that Trump cannot conceive of a good explanation for an inconvenient court ruling other than Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's irrelevant that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 law the administration invoked to impose the relevant tariffs, does not even mention the word 'tariff' or that Congress never envisioned the IEEPA as a tool for launching a trade war with every nation in the world, the 'Penguin Islands' included. Also disregard the fact that the decision was unanimous and only one of the three judges was appointed by Trump (the other two were Reagan and Obama appointees). (The decision has been paused by an appeals court.) Trump is the foremost practitioner of what I call Critical Trump Theory — anything bad for Trump is unfair, illegitimate and proof that sinister forces are rigging the system against him. No wonder then that Trump thinks Leonard Leo, formerly a guiding light at the Federalist Society, the premier conservative legal organization, is a 'sleazebag' and 'bad person.' Note: Leo is neither of those things. But Trump's broadsides at Leo and the Federalist Society are portentous. Because Congress is AWOL, refusing to take the lead on trade (and many other things) as the Constitution envisions, it's fallen to the courts to restrain Trump's multifront efforts to exceed his authority. That's why the White House is cynically denouncing 'unelected' and 'rogue' judges on an almost daily basis and why Trump's political henchman, Stephen Miller, is incessantly ranting about a 'judicial coup.' The supreme, and sometimes seemingly sole, qualification for appointments to the Trump administration has been servile loyalty to Trump. But that ethos is not reserved for the executive branch. Law firms, elite universities and media outlets are being forced to kneel before the president. Why should judges be any different? Trump has a history of suggesting 'my judges' — i.e., his appointees — should be loyal to him. That's why he recently nominated Emil Bove, his former personal criminal lawyer turned political enforcer at the Department of Justice, for a federal judgeship. The significance of Trump's attack on the Federalist Society and Leo, for conservatives, cannot be exaggerated. The legal movement spearheaded by the Federalist Society has been the most successful domestic conservative project of the last century. Scholarly, civic-minded and principled, the Federalist Society spent decades developing ideas and arguments for re-centering the Constitution in American law. But now Trump has issued a fatwah that it, too, must bend the knee and its principles to the needs of one man. The law be damned, ruling against Trump is ingratitude in his mind. Speaking of ingratitude, the irony is that the Federalist Society deserves a lot of credit — or blame — for Trump being elected in the first place. In 2016, the death of Antonin Scalia left a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Many conservatives did not trust Trump to replace him. To reassure them, Trump agreed to pick from a list of potential replacements crafted by the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society. That decision arguably convinced many reluctant conservatives to vote for him. In the decade since, the Heritage Foundation has dutifully reinvented itself in Trump's image. The Federalist Society stayed loyal to its principles, and that's why the Federalist Society is in Trump's crosshairs. @JonahDispatch
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Rubio leading negotiations with Bukele on returning migrants
The Justice Department disclosed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is leading negotiations for the return of a Venezuelan man sent to a Salvadoran prison. The disclosure, made in Monday court filings, is no guarantee the Trump administration will secure the return of a man known only in court documents as Cristian, who was deported in spite of court-ordered protections. But it strikes a less aggressive tone as the Trump administration has otherwise resisted efforts to comply with various court orders requiring them to return migrants who were wrongly removed. The filing notes Rubio's long-standing relationship with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele. 'Based on his deep diplomatic experience with El Salvador and the secretary's familiarity with political and diplomatic sensitivities in that country, he is personally handling the discussions with the government of El Salvador regarding persons subject to the court's order detained in El Salvador,' the State Department said in a statement included in the filing. It adds that Rubio has 'read and understands this court's order and wants to ensure the court he is making prompt and diligent efforts' to comply. Cristian was the second publicly reported case of someone mistakenly deported to El Salvador. The 20-year-old Cristian was among those who entered the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor, part of a lawsuit that protected him and others from removal while they were permitted to seek asylum. In another case, Salvadoran man Kilmar Abrego Garcia was sent to a prison in the country despite a 2019 order from an immigration judge protecting him from being removed and sent to his native country. In that case, the Trump administration has resisted a Supreme Court order to return the man, saying the directive to 'facilitate' his return requires only sending a plane to receive him should El Salvador wish to release him. Bukele has said he will not release Abrego Garcia. In a third case, the Justice Department has said it is working to return a Guatemalan man who was deported to Mexico, despite having previously been raped and extorted in the country. In court filings last week, the administration said it was arranging for him to come back to the U.S. on the return leg of a deportation flight. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump leans on GOP senators as they gear up to make changes to his domestic policy bill
President Donald Trump spoke with several GOP senators on Monday, including ones who have raised concerns about his domestic policy bill, as the chamber gears up to make changes to the legislation and congressional leaders aim to put the package on Trump's desk by July 4. In a sign of the challenges ahead for GOP leaders, a number of Republican senators have raised concerns about the House-passed package, demanding changes that could be tough for Speaker Mike Johnson's narrow majority to swallow when it moves back over to the House. The president met with Senate Majority Leader John Thune at the White House on Monday, who said they 'covered a lot of ground. A lot about the big, beautiful bill.' A White House official confirmed Thune and Trump met. Several of the senators who have been most vocal about their concerns — Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky — said that they discussed the package with the president. Paul told CNN that he 'had a lengthy discussion' with Trump this week and told the President that he can't back the bill if an increase to the debt ceiling remains in the package. 'It's just not a conservative thing to do, and I've told him I can't support the bill if they are together. If they were to separate out and take the debt ceiling off that, I very much could consider the rest of the bill,' said Paul, who noted that Trump 'did most of the talking' on their call. Johnson said he 'got a real nice call from the President this morning, had a nice conversation, very respectful,' as the Wisconsin Republican continues to press the President for further assurances that Congress will commit to more stringent spending cuts than what were included in the House bill. Johnson opened the door, however, to being flexible in how the White House could assuage his concerns and said he was open to getting assurances for future cuts to be made outside of just the framework of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' Asked if he would be open to passing something that looked like the House bill but with a 'promise' for other spending changes in the future, Johnson said, 'I want to help the president succeed in this thing so I've got a pretty open mind. My requirement has always been a commitment to a reasonable pre-pandemic level of spending and a process to achieve and maintain it.' Trump addressed Senate Republicans in a Truth Social post on Monday, writing, 'With the Senate coming back to Washington today, I call on all of my Republican friends in the Senate and House to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Hawley, who has expressed deep concerns with potential changes to Medicaid, posted on X that he also spoke with the president about the bill. 'Just had a great talk with President Trump about the Big, Beautiful Bill. He said again, NO MEDICAID BENEFIT CUTS,' wrote Hawley. He told reporters later that he is very concerned about the impact of the tax on providers because it could cause already struggling rural hospitals in his state and around the county to close, something that would be akin to a cut in benefits if Medicaid recipients can't access health care. 'I'm also worried about this sick tax, you know, where now charging people to go to the doctor, pay before they can see a doctor. You know, they're on Medicaid because they can't afford to buy private health insurance. So, if they could afford to be paying out of pocket, they wouldn't be on Medicaid. So I don't know why we would tax them and penalize them,' said Hawley. Hawley said in his phone call with Trump, the president asked him what he thought the prospects for the bill are in the Senate. 'I said, 'good if we don't cut Medicaid, if we do no Medicaid benefit cuts. And he said, I'm 100% supportive of that',' he said. 'He specifically said, 'waste, fraud and abuse, fine and work requirements, fine…but no benefit cuts'. And I said, 'we are singing from the same handbook.' The various changes that GOP senators would like to see to the sweeping domestic policy bill make clear that the process of passing the 'big, beautiful bill' is far from the finish line. 'The world hasn't changed since we've been on recess,' Sen. Thom Tillis told reporters on Monday evening. 'There's work to do there.' The North Carolina Republican, who's up for reelection in 2026, noted that about 620,000 recipients have enrolled in Medicaid since his state expanded the program. It's been a concern among some lawmakers that work requirements implemented in the House's bill could particularly impact coverage in Medicaid expansion states. 'We've got to work on getting that right, giving the state legislatures and others a chance to react to it, make a recommendation or make a change, and that's all the implementation stuff that we're beginning to talk about now that we're in possession of the bill,' Tillis said. Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who will also have to defend her seat next year, finds the House-drafted work requirements 'acceptable,' but voiced other concerns with a provision related to provider taxes that could impact how states receive federal dollars. 'I'm very concerned about not only low-income families, but our rural hospitals,' she said. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito told CNN that she did roundtables with constituents in West Virginia over the recess and 'there's a lot of concern' about Medicaid at home. 'We haven't had a chance to digest how it's going to impact our hospitals,' she said. Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas said he was also worried about 'harming hospitals that we just spent COVID money to save,' adding that he'll be 'lobbying to try to get something that's acceptable to me' on Medicaid in the bill. Another red line floated by some Senate Republicans is the roll back of Biden-era clean energy tax credits, which could begin with several consumer credits as soon as the end of this year. Tillis said he's looking at the issue 'through the lens of a businessperson,' explaining, 'it's easy, you know, from a political standpoint, to cancel programs that are out there. We need to be smart about where capital has been deployed and to minimize the impact on the message that we send businesses that every two or four years we have massive changes in our priorities for energy transition.' He said lawmakers should 'show some respect' to businesses that have employed capital on clean energy initiatives, adding 'I think we can get there' before walking into a meeting of the Senate Finance Committee. On the clean energy tax credit phaseout timeline, Moran said, 'I think there's a lot of Senate sentiment that it's too rapid.' Still, he wouldn't say if he'd vote against the existing bill, noting that he would lose 'leverage,' adding that the whole package has 'lots of things that I care about.' Sen. Markwayne Mullin, who has been playing a key role in talks with his former House colleagues, said he thinks there are 'two big issues' that the Senate can't touch, which were central in House GOP leadership's down-to-the-wire negotiations with holdouts. 'We have a structure, a great structure, the House sent over. We don't have to tear down that structure. We may have to put some more decorations in some of the rooms and maybe repaint some of the walls, but it's got a good structure to it,' he said. The Oklahoma Republican said the Senate should not go below the about $1.6 trillion in spending cuts promised to conservative hardliners or change the state and local tax deduction provisions carefully negotiated with House Republicans from high tax states. 'As long as we leave those two things there, and then we put our fingerprints on the rest of it, I think we're in good shape,' he said. Sen. John Cornyn, an ally of GOP leadership, said he thinks they'll try to have the bill on Trump's desk by July 4, 'which means things are going to have to move at a much faster schedule.' He noted that with the debt ceiling limit closing in, the House may have to just accept what passes the Senate, telling reporters, 'I've been around here long enough to see the Senate jam the House and the House jam the Senate.' CNN's David Wright and Kristen Holmes contributed.
