HR-4182-119
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, Natural Resources, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)
What it does
The Housing not Handcuffs Act of 2025 would restrict federal, state, and local governments from enforcing laws that criminalize homelessness — such as anti-camping, anti-sleeping, or loitering ordinances — on federal and public lands. The bill's full text was not available for detailed review, but based on its title, short title, and committee referrals (Transportation and Infrastructure, Oversight and Government Reform, Natural Resources, and the Judiciary), it would likely prohibit fines, arrests, or property seizures targeting people experiencing homelessness in public spaces, and may establish related federal standards or funding conditions.
Who benefits
People experiencing homelessness, particularly those living on federal or public lands such as parks, sidewalks, and open spaces. Civil liberties and homeless advocacy organizations. Public defenders and legal aid organizations that currently handle criminalization cases. Municipalities that face legal or financial pressure from enforcing such ordinances. Indirectly, social service providers who argue criminalization disrupts access to housing and treatment programs.
Who is hurt
Local and state governments that would lose authority to enforce existing public-space ordinances. Businesses and residents near public lands who may oppose encampments. Park visitors and recreational users who share federal lands. Law enforcement agencies that would face new restrictions on their tools for managing public spaces. Taxpayers who may bear costs of alternative services required if criminalization is restricted. Competing interests in the housing and shelter system if demand for services increases without corresponding funding.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that criminalizing homelessness is both ineffective and counterproductive — fines and arrests create criminal records that make it harder for people to obtain housing or employment, deepening the cycle of homelessness. They point to the Supreme Court's decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024), which upheld anti-camping ordinances, as evidence that federal legislative action is now the only avenue to protect unhoused individuals from punitive enforcement when no shelter is available.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that managing public spaces is a core function of state and local government under the Tenth Amendment, and that a federal prohibition on local ordinances intrudes on traditional police powers that have never been federalized. They contend that without enforceable public-space rules, cities lose a critical tool for directing people toward shelter and services, and that the bill could make it harder for communities to maintain safe, accessible public lands for all users.
Constitutional context
The Tenth Amendment reserves traditional land-use and police powers to states and localities, making federal restrictions on local ordinances constitutionally contested. The Commerce Clause and Congress's authority over federal lands (Art. IV, §3) provide a potential basis for regulating conduct on federally owned property, though the bill's reach to state and local public lands raises federalism questions similar to those in anti-commandeering doctrine.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to restrict how state and local governments enforce public-space laws, at least on federal lands; the Judiciary Committee referral suggests enforcement or penalty mechanisms that courts would review, and the anti-commandeering doctrine (Murphy v. NCAA, 2018) may limit how far Congress can direct state enforcement behavior.
Historical precedent
The Ninth Circuit's Martin v. City of Boise (2019) previously restricted anti-camping enforcement when shelter was unavailable, but the Supreme Court's City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024) reversed that framework, directly prompting legislative responses like this bill.