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
This bill would prohibit federal agencies from penalizing homeless individuals for conducting life-sustaining activities — such as sleeping, eating, sitting, or sheltering — on federal public lands, unless adequate alternative indoor shelter is available. It would also grant homeless individuals rights to move freely, solicit donations, practice religion, store possessions, and occupy lawfully parked vehicles on federal land. The bill creates a private right of action and an affirmative defense for homeless individuals charged with violations, and sets detailed standards for what qualifies as "adequate alternative indoor space."
Who benefits
Approximately 650,000 people experiencing homelessness on any given night in the U.S. (per HUD's 2023 Point-in-Time count), particularly the unsheltered portion (~40%) who sleep outdoors. Homeless individuals in cities with large federal land footprints (e.g., Washington D.C., national park-adjacent urban areas). Civil liberties and legal aid organizations that represent homeless clients. Attorneys who would be eligible for fee awards under the bill's enforcement provisions. Homeless individuals living in vehicles, who gain specific protections for occupied and parked RVs and motor vehicles.
Who is hurt
Federal land managers (National Park Service, GSA, etc.) who would face reduced enforcement authority and potential litigation costs. Businesses and residents near federal properties who may be affected by increased encampments. Federal agency budgets, which could absorb litigation and compliance costs. Local governments that rely on federal land enforcement as part of broader encampment management strategies. Taxpayers who may bear costs of litigation, attorney fee awards, and any required provision of "adequate alternative indoor space" to trigger enforcement authority.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that criminalizing homelessness punishes people for a condition — lack of housing — rather than harmful conduct, and that the Supreme Court's decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024) left the door open for Congress to set a higher federal standard. They contend that enforcement sweeps destroy possessions, disrupt access to services, and make it harder for people to exit homelessness, citing research showing that criminalization increases long-term shelter costs. The bill's shelter-availability exception, they argue, ensures enforcement remains possible when genuine alternatives exist.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's definition of "adequate alternative indoor space" — requiring indefinite availability, no daily reapplication, accommodation of pets, partners, possessions, and disabilities, at no cost — sets a standard so demanding that it would effectively eliminate federal agencies' ability to manage encampments on public lands in nearly all circumstances. They contend that land management agencies have legitimate safety, sanitation, and public access obligations, and that shifting enforcement authority to federal courts through a private right of action with mandatory attorney fee awards could expose agencies to costly litigation over routine land management decisions.