Washington Supreme Court blocks Spokane crackdown on homeless camps

In a high-stakes battle over homelessness policy, the Washington Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, ruled Thursday that Spokane voters cannot use the ballot box to rewrite the city’s rules on homeless encampments.

The court said Initiative 2023-4—a proposal to expand the city’s ability to criminalize camping in public places—wasn’t a case of “the people making laws,” but rather the people trying to play city manager. And that, the court said, was an overstep.

What is the controversy?

Back in 2022, Spokane resident Brian Hansen proposed an initiative that would’ve gone way beyond the city’s current policies, cracking down on encampments even if no shelter beds were available.

That’s a major shift, considering Spokane is already part of a state-local partnership, formed under the Homeless Housing Assistance Act (HHAA), that allows camping only when shelters are full.

In other words, the city was playing by a set of state-supported rules, and Hansen’s local initiative wanted the voters to decide.

The Supreme Court said: You can’t do that through a local initiative.

“The Hansen Initiative administers the details of Spokane’s preexisting policy approach,” Justice Gordon McCloud wrote in the court’s opinion. “That makes it administrative, and therefore off-limits for a local initiative.”

This ruling reverses decisions by the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and even the city’s own hearing examiner, who all thought voters had the green light to weigh in. But six of the justices said nope—this is micromanagement, not legislation.

In a sharply worded dissent, Chief Justice Debra Stephens didn’t hold back. Stephens argued the initiative was exactly the kind of new policy that citizens are allowed to make through the ballot box. Unlike past cases about zoning tweaks or changing a street name, the Hansen Initiative marked a major shift in Spokane’s approach to public camping, not just a small adjustment to existing law.

She called out the majority for stretching the definition of “administrative” so far that it undercuts the whole idea of direct democracy.

“The people of Spokane have a right to change course,” she wrote, noting that nothing in state law makes homelessness enforcement a super-regulated area off-limits to voters.

Why is this a big deal?

Washington’s housing and homelessness crisis has been a decades-long saga. Back in 2005, state lawmakers passed the HHAA, launching a partnership between the state and local governments to develop five-year plans to reduce homelessness. In 2018, the crisis hit new highs, so lawmakers added more muscle via the Washington Housing Opportunities Act, with stronger state oversight.

Spokane signed on to all of this. The city crafted a detailed 2020–2025 plan that leaned into outreach, shelter expansion, and data tracking. It included everything from mapping encampments to increasing shelter funding, all while acknowledging a tough truth: Shelters help, but housing ends homelessness.

The Hansen Initiative wasn’t born in a vacuum. It came on the heels of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Martin v. City of Boise (2019), which temporarily made it illegal to criminalize sleeping in public if no shelter was available.

Spokane responded by updating its code to comply. Then the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Martin in 2024’s Johnson decision, giving cities more power again. Hansen’s initiative was part of the backlash wave—pushing to go further than even the current city law allows.

But the majority of justices said it is an override of an existing system that was already functioning under state guidance.

For Hansen and those pushing for a tougher stance on homeless encampments, this ruling is a major roadblock. For advocates worried about the criminalization of poverty, it’s a huge relief.

Matt Markovich is the KIRO Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on X. Read more of his stories here.