More than a century ago, coal miners, explorers and teachers at Boulder’s Chautauqua slept in tents to shield themselves from the region’s high-altitude elements. Since the 1980s, doing the same in Boulder has been illegal. City law allows officers to ticket people for sleeping in public spaces if they use any form of shelter, including a blanket.
Civil rights lawyers challenging Boulder’s camping ban argue that Colorado’s long history of outdoor survival is one reason homeless people deserve stronger legal protections under the state constitution.
On May 19, the ACLU of Colorado filed its opening brief with the Colorado Court of Appeals seeking to overturn a Boulder County District Court ruling that upheld the city’s right to ticket people for sleeping outside. The lawsuit, filed in 2022 on behalf of several homeless people and the now-defunct nonprofit Feet Forward, alleges the city’s enforcement amounts to cruel and unusual punishment when no shelter beds are available, among other arguments.
The district court’s December 2024 decision relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s August 2024 ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson, which found a similar camping ban in Oregon did not violate the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
But the plaintiffs in the local case argue the Colorado Constitution’s identical clause should be interpreted more broadly than the federal version.
“When interpreting the Colorado Constitution, this Court is responsible for protecting fundamental rights in accordance with Colorado’s unique history, tradition, geography, and legal landscape,” the opening brief states.
To help make that case, the lawyers cite historical examples of tent use by coal miners and early explorers such as Lewis and Clark and Major Stephen Long. The brief also includes a photo from 1899 showing what appears to be educators at Boulder’s Chautauqua living out of tents. Two CU Boulder professors and a graduate student who are historians filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that Colorado’s history of camping is relevant to constitutional interpretation.
“Coloradans have been living outside, and so necessarily covering themselves for survival, since long before the state existed,” the plaintiffs write. “In the context of this history and tradition, the Colorado Constitution’s protections should be interpreted consistent with the fact that it is cruel and unusual punishment to criminalize Coloradans covering themselves to survive outside in Boulder.”
The city, in earlier legal filings, has argued that there is no legal basis to interpret the state constitution differently than the U.S. Constitution in this case. It cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Grants Pass and said that decisions over how to address homelessness should be left to legislators, not the courts.
The City of Boulder has also argued that the ban is a “reasonable exercise” of its police powers to protect public health and safety and to keep public spaces accessible to all residents. As part of its 2025 budget, the city increased funding for its encampment removal program to about $3.7 million.
“This is especially true when one considers that, armed with a constitutional right to erect tents and otherwise dwell on public land, homeless persons could establish essentially permanent tent cities in the parks and other public spaces of Boulder,” the city wrote in a 2022 legal filing.
The city will have a chance to respond before the Colorado Court of Appeals makes its decision.
The ruling could shape how Boulder and cities across the state address encampments of homeless people. The case unfolds as hundreds of people live outside in the City of Boulder, a local youth shelter recently closed, and the largest adult shelter in the city reduced its number of beds. Both organizations cited funding challenges.
Cities have an obligation to taxpayers to remove vagrant camps from public spaces. Enabling people to live in squalor isn’t compassionate, and it’s unfair to taxpayers who want to use their parks, storefronts, sidewalks and streets without having to witness human degradation.
I agree, BUT. $60K per person annually for outdoor camping. How to? with already a huge budget deficit.
We should, and after Trump’s “economic” policies take effect, we’ll have to, do what most towns in the US did in the Great Depression: let the homeless live somewhere on the edge of town, called Hoovervilles. If we start by providing water and portapotties, most homeless will go there instead of being evicted every 72 hours in our parks and on the creeks. When funds are available, we can provide a kitchen, showers and laundry. Later, insulated tents or pallet shelters or tiny homes. All of this is MUCH cheaper than spending $3.7 million a year on “sweeps” and more on the justice system and emergency room visits.
We SHOULDN’T give a few homeless full sized apartments, like the 540 sq ft ones in the Lee Hill development. That results, according to Jen Livovich, who started Feet Forward, in hoarding requiring City cleanups, or residents inviting others in, more drug use, and chop shops. It also removes the incentive to get a job so one can get a better place.
Lee Hill is a Permanent Supportive Housing development built for disabled people. How many of them are going to be able to get jobs?
I’m just curious… regarding “let the homeless live somewhere on the edge of town”, are there any specific suggestions on location?
After sending 24 people including 7 City Council members to Oregon to look at camps and tiny home villages in 2016, the City identified 4 properties they own that could be suitable, but nothing happened. I believe they were all “brownfields” in the East part of town, pretty ugly. I think they should find a nicer place and I know 2 in little-used parts of The People’s Crossing, formerly Settlers Park just North of where the West end of Pearl St. meets Canyon Blvd.
Is there any data-supported desired outcome – which is how all the city council candidates describe their approach – for the $3.7M spent in 2025 on sweeping-out the homeless? My anecdotal data showed the Central Park inhabitants relocating to the Valmont Frisbee Golf Park before any big downtown event (Boulder Creek Festival or CU Parents Weekend), vs the actual # of those who spend the night outside & under a blanket being reduced.
& how effective is it to ticket an unhoused person in Boulder – how are they going to pay it & does that ticket then stop them from spending another night outside (which may not be safe for them & then the housing passing by say they feel unsafe, too)?
If Boulder is spending $3.7M in 2025 to just shuffle around the unhoused – with no sustained reduction in the # of unhoused every night – then that does leave room for an actual & even creative solution that the city has something to show for themselves after spending almost $4M this year
Comparing today’s homeless to “ miners, explorers and teachers” is beyond a stretch.
First, efforts to distribute gear, food, and supplies such as those by Jen Livovich and organizations like Colorado Friendship should be relocated from the bandshell and courthouse parking lot to more appropriate locations, potentially closer to where the volunteers reside. If legal action arises, such as from the ACLU, there should be a strong defense that also considers the rights and concerns of local taxpayers. While supporting those in need is important, there must also be accountability and encouragement for individuals to seek employment and long-term solutions. Frivolous lawsuits that do not serve the broader community interest should be dismissed.
Comparing Boulder’s illegal encampments to 1800s tent communities of miners, explorers, and educators is ridiculous. Some even hunted to survive—so should we legalize unrestricted hunting too? This nonsense discredits the ACLU, Dan Williams, and the other plaintiffs.
If they truly cared about the homeless, they’d focus on real solutions like better addiction and mental health treatment—not hijack groups like Feet Forward or waste taxpayer money on frivolous lawsuits that do nothing for those living outdoors in unsafe conditions.
The outdoor transitional camps are a good idea that every city should undertake. They could stand one up in Boulder by diverting half the annual “sweeps” budget — which solves nothing if there is nowhere else for people to go. The heads in sand resistance approach is not going to get rid of the unhoused, it will only make homelessness worse as available beds at All Roads decrease and more people fall through the cracks. Finding competent people to oversee a camp will be an issue, though. When HHS put out a RFP to run the day center before it was shunted out to All Roads they got zero qualified responses. Also, we do need PSH like Lee Hill. That’s a given. Disabled people need accommodations. The problem with PSH is that there is never enough money or resources to provide the services needed. Those tenants need 24/7 oversight and personalized services.