On May 22, RHLS Attorneys Kathryn Robinson, Jack Stucker, and Kim Dolan submitted an Amicus Brief to the Third Circuit Federal Court in support of Pottstown’s unhoused residents, represented by the Legal Aid of Southern Pennsylvania (LASP) and Community Justice Project (CJP). You can download the brief here. The judge’s pending decision is on RHLS’s motion for leave to file the amicus brief should be forthcoming in a few days.
In 2023, CJP and LASP sued the Borough of Pottstown for violating the constitutional rights of its unhoused residents by criminalizing sleeping outside when there was insufficient shelter capacity within the jurisdiction. The issue in this case closely parallels that of Grants Pass, recently argued before the US Supreme Court. RHLS’s amicus brief contends that Pottstown’s claim that criminalization is a necessary tool to address homelessness is fundamentally flawed.
It highlighted empirical data and RHLS’s client experiences to demonstrate that housing and shelter are the most effective solutions to homelessness. The brief also underscores that while Pottstown has the authority to permit shelter operations within its jurisdiction to address the crisis, it weaponizes its zoning code to outright prohibit them, thereby creating the crisis they seek to punish.
A federal court decision issued Nov. 28, 2023, protected the constitutional rights of Pottstown College Drive Encampment residents experiencing homelessness. The ruling granted a preliminary injunction, in part, for plaintiffs, Better Days Ahead Outreach, Inc. et al. Judge Mia R. Perez, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, cited the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment as the basis of her decision.
The hearing for Better Days Ahead Outreach, Inc. et al v. Borough of Pottstown took place on Nov. 16 and 20 at the James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse in Philadelphia. Judge Perez issued a 16-page opinion and a 2-page order on Nov. 28, 2023. The Borough of Pottstown appealed to the Third Circuit, where this case is now pending.
Parties typically consent to amicus filings in the ordinary course of appellate litigation. The court requires either all party’s consent or approval by a judge on motion. In this case, Pottstown refused to provide the typical consent, and all amicus filers had to submit a motion to accept the briefs. We understand and anticipate RHLS’s (and the other amicus flier’s) motion(s) will be granted but are currently awaiting a decision from the Circuit Judge.
A special thanks to our new intern, Cameron Chisholm, for her invaluable assistance in cleaning up citations and formatting at the eleventh hour, all on her very first day!