The Austin Court of Appeals has determined that business owners who challenged Proposition B, which made it a criminal offense for a person to sit, lie down, or camp in public areas.
In Robert Mayfield, Laura North, Stuart Dupuy, and Bob Woody v. City of Austin, Texas, and T.C. Broadnax in his Official Capacity as City Manager (No. 03-23-00051-CV; January 31, 2025), Plaintiff business owners challenged the enforcement of Proposition B, alleging that nonenforcement has resulted in “severe business disruption.” Plaintiffs pointed testimony describing conditions that existed prior to and after 2019 , when the City amended the code to ease restrictions on public camping. In general, Plaintiffs argued that Proposition B has made no real difference in reducing public camping and criminal acts resulting from it. Plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus compelling the City to enforce the ordinance. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of standing and justiciable controversy.
In an opinion by Chief Justice Byrne, the court of appeals affirmed as to the standing issue. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a direct causal link between enforcement of Proposition B and a decrease in public encampment and solicitation. Instead, Plaintiffs’ argument assumes that unhoused people involved lack free will, regardless of whether consequences will be applied. In other words, even strict enforcement of Proposition B cannot entirely stop an unhoused person from camping if the person doesn’t care about the consequences.
Additionally, the court determined that United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670, 676 (2023) applies in this case, contrary to Plaintiffs’ arguments. It held that Defendants did not adequately plead law and facts to exclude their claims from this precedent because refusal to enforce the proposition does not: (1) constitute a policy of abdication; and (2) Plaintiffs have no judicially cognizable interest in seeing other people arrested.
Finally, Plaintiffs could not show that their injuries to be redressed by a judicial remedy. Ordering the City to arrest more unhoused people found violating the ordinance would not solve the problem. It also would not stop independent actors simply taking the risk and taking it again when they got out of jail. Plaintiffs thus lacked standing to sue. The court, however, held that the trial court erred in dismissing the case with prejudice. Instead, it remanded the case to give Plaintiffs the chance to amend their pleadings.
TCJL Research Intern Geneva Cline researched and substantially drafted this article.
