The California Right to Rest Act was a proposed state law, introduced as SB 608 in 2015 and reintroduced as SB 876 in 2016, that would have given homeless individuals the right to use public spaces to sit, sleep, eat, and shelter without criminal penalty. Neither version became law. SB 608 stalled in committee, and the Senate Housing and Transportation Committee voted SB 876 down in March 2016. No version has advanced through the legislature since.
What the Bill Would Have Protected
The Right to Rest Act aimed to establish a set of basic civil rights for people experiencing homelessness. Under its terms, individuals could use and move freely through public spaces, rest in public areas, protect themselves from the elements, eat food in any public space where food is not otherwise prohibited, and practice religious observances in public spaces.1California Legislative Information. California Senate Bill 876 – Homelessness The 2015 version, SB 608, also included the right to occupy a legally parked vehicle or recreational vehicle.2Digital Democracy. SB 608 – Homelessness
The bill’s central target was local ordinances that effectively criminalize homelessness. Cities across California had passed laws making it illegal to sleep, sit, or lie down in public. The bill’s sponsors argued these ordinances punished people for performing unavoidable human activities when they had nowhere else to go. The Right to Rest Act would have exempted protected conduct from California’s disorderly conduct statute, which makes it a crime to lodge in any building, vehicle, or place without the property owner’s permission.2Digital Democracy. SB 608 – Homelessness
The legislation also included an anti-discrimination provision. It would have prohibited policies or practices that discriminate against people based on housing status, whether the discrimination was intentional or the practical effect of an otherwise neutral rule.1California Legislative Information. California Senate Bill 876 – Homelessness
How It Would Have Been Enforced
The bill gave individuals a private right of action. Anyone whose rights were violated could file a civil lawsuit, and courts could award injunctive relief, restitution, actual damages, and statutory damages of $1,000 per violation, plus attorney’s fees and costs.1California Legislative Information. California Senate Bill 876 – Homelessness The $1,000 figure mattered because it gave homeless individuals a financial incentive to challenge local enforcement even when their actual monetary losses were small.
The bill also contemplated training programs for law enforcement and public officials, with the goal of shifting the default response away from citations and arrests toward connecting people with services.
Why the Bill Failed
Opposition centered on the tension between protecting homeless individuals and preserving local control over public spaces. Cities argued the bill would strip them of the ability to manage parks, sidewalks, and other shared areas. Concerns about public health, sanitation, and safety around encampments near schools, businesses, and residential neighborhoods dominated the committee debate. The Senate Housing and Transportation Committee voted SB 876 down in March 2016.
No state has enacted a Right to Rest Act. Similar bills introduced in Colorado and Oregon have also failed. The concept remains a legislative aspiration rather than law anywhere in the country.
Martin v. Boise Filled the Gap for Six Years
Even without the Right to Rest Act, homeless individuals in California gained significant legal protection through federal court decisions, at least for a time. In 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Martin v. City of Boise that criminalizing sleeping outdoors on public property violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment when no alternative shelter is available.3Justia Law. Martin v City of Boise No 15-35845 9th Cir 2018 The logic was straightforward: if a person has no choice but to sleep outside, punishing them for it amounts to punishing them for being homeless.
For six years, Martin functioned as a de facto right to rest across the western states covered by the Ninth Circuit, California included. Cities could not enforce camping bans whenever the number of homeless individuals exceeded available shelter beds.
Grants Pass v. Johnson Ended That Protection
In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s framework. In City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Court ruled 6–3 that enforcing generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.4Supreme Court of the United States. City of Grants Pass v Johnson 603 US 2024 Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said the Eighth Amendment does not authorize federal judges to dictate homelessness policy, and that decisions about how to address public camping belong to elected officials and voters.
The ruling did not require cities to crack down on encampments. The Court was explicit that states and cities remain free to decline to criminalize public camping, or to narrow their camping laws however they see fit.4Supreme Court of the United States. City of Grants Pass v Johnson 603 US 2024 What the decision removed was the constitutional floor, the rule that cities had to tolerate camping when shelter beds were insufficient. After Grants Pass, whether to enforce anti-camping ordinances became a policy question rather than a constitutional one.
California’s Current Direction
Governor Newsom moved quickly after Grants Pass. In July 2024, he issued Executive Order N-1-24 directing state agencies to adopt policies for removing encampments on state property and encouraging local governments to do the same.5Governor of California. Executive Order N-1-24
The order attaches procedural requirements to encampment removal: agencies should assess whether an encampment poses an imminent threat before clearing it, post at least 48 hours’ notice where no emergency exists, contact service providers to offer help to residents before removal, and collect, label, and store any non-hazardous belongings for at least 60 days. The order also asks local governments to use state-funded housing and intervention resources to remove encampments, prioritizing those that most threaten the life, health, and safety of people in and around them.5Governor of California. Executive Order N-1-24
In practice, California’s current approach leans toward clearing encampments, the opposite direction from what the Right to Rest Act envisioned.
What Legal Protections Still Exist
The failure of the Right to Rest Act and the Grants Pass decision do not leave homeless individuals in California without any legal recourse. Several avenues remain, though none provide the broad shield the bill would have created.
Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, anyone whose constitutional rights are violated by a government actor can file a federal civil rights lawsuit. This applies when law enforcement uses excessive force during encampment sweeps, destroys personal property without due process, or selectively enforces laws in a discriminatory way. Successful claims can yield compensatory damages, nominal damages, and punitive damages, and there is generally no requirement to exhaust state remedies before filing.6Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Instructions for Civil Rights Claims Under Section 1983 The catch is that Section 1983 challenges the manner of enforcement, not the existence of anti-camping laws themselves. A city can lawfully ban public camping. It just cannot enforce that ban by using excessive force or destroying belongings without notice.
Executive Order N-1-24 also creates a procedural baseline for state agencies. Agencies that skip the notice or property-storage steps face potential liability, and affected individuals can point to the order’s requirements when challenging removals that ignored them.
Where the Right to Rest Idea Stands Today
The Right to Rest Act represented a vision of decriminalized homelessness that has not materialized in California or any other state. The legal trajectory since 2024 has moved the other way: the Supreme Court removed the constitutional protection against camping bans, the governor issued an executive order prioritizing encampment removal, and local governments have gained broader authority to enforce anti-camping ordinances.
For homeless individuals in California, using public space for sleeping or sheltering is no longer shielded by federal court precedent. Protections that do exist are procedural, covering notice before removal, storage of belongings, and outreach to service providers, rather than a substantive right to remain. Anyone facing an encampment clearance or citation should know that how the enforcement is carried out still matters legally, even when the enforcement itself is now permitted.