King County Sheriff's Decision to Tackle Homelessness Dangerously Usurps Power

King County Sheriff Patti Cole-Tindall, acting on orders from her Chief Executive Dow Constantine to the point where they are both effective co-sheriffs, is dangerously usurping the power of city leaders and their constituents. Even after the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision in Johnson v. Grants Pass, Oregon, the King County Sheriff's Office (KCSO) refuses to enforce Burien's anti-camping ordinance. They insist that the homeless ordinance be rewritten, which is clearly not their prerogative.

The Supreme Court unequivocally upheld Grants Pass, Oregon’s anti-camping law, stating that cities can choose such restrictions to address the many problems associated with sleeping outdoors, such as crime, the spread of disease, community blight, and access to public and private property. Burien’s anti-camping ordinance is similar, prohibiting encampments within 500 feet of vulnerable populations such as children in parks or schools and seniors in senior centers.

Despite the Supreme Court's clear direction, Cole-Tindall and Constantine persist in their non-compliance, insisting on rewriting the order.

“The U.S. Supreme Court decision (in Johnson v. Grants Pass, Oregon) does not change our current policy on enforcing the camping ban in Burien,” a KCSO statement read. “We will not be making arrests based on this change in the law until other issues are resolved, such as an ordinance that includes prohibited camping areas and more specificity about prohibited behavior in designated no-camping areas.”

Translation: Cole-Tindall and Constantine believe they have the right to revise the legislation they oppose. If they need specific campsites, they can just ask. The prohibited behavior in no-camping zones is clearly defined: it’s camping. It’s not complicated, especially since the KCSO itself calls it a “camping ban.” Meanwhile, homeless people are dying of drug overdoses who could otherwise be referred to treatment.

More from Jason Rantz:The Sheriff's Betrayal of the Homeless is Why Dow Constantine Appointed Her

How are the King County Sheriff and Executive usurping local power over the homeless ordinance?

Writing for the majority, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized “a handful of federal judges” who thought they could match “the collective wisdom of the American people in deciding” the answer to “a pressing social issue like homelessness.” That criticism applies perfectly to Cole-Tindall and Constantine, whose expertise in constitutional interpretation likely comes from their heavy viewing of Ally McBeal.

King County Sheriff Cole-Tindall and Co-Sheriff Constantine are shirking their responsibilities by refusing to enforce a homeless ordinance they disagree with, much like the “constitutional sheriffs” progressives once criticized for imposing their personal ideologies on the authority of elected officials.

The county has taken Burien’s anti-camping ordinance to court, questioning its constitutionality despite the fact that it may not have standing in the case. Instead of waiting for a court decision, they are assuming the ordinance is unconstitutional. Without a preliminary injunction to stop KCSO from enforcing the law, the county is in violation of its agreement with Burien, which includes complying with city laws.

Even more troubling is their shifting argument. The KCSO complaint initially claimed that police “cannot participate in efforts” to move encampments without providing shelter. The Supreme Court disagrees, hence the shift in their concerns.

More from Jason Rantz:Supreme Court's Decision in Grants Pass Finally Allows Us to Abandon Progressive Homelessness Policies

King County Dishonestly Takes Supreme Court Grants Pass Decision Out of Context

KCSO claims the Supreme Court's Grants Pass decision supports its refusal to enforce Burien's anti-camping ordinance, but it clearly takes the Supreme Court's majority opinion out of context.

“As the Supreme Court has noted, 'the Constitution provides many additional limits on the states' prosecutorial power, promising due process,'” the statement reads.

The Constitution does provide for limits. But Cole-Tindall and Constantine cherry-picked a portion of a sentence written by Gorsuch to support King County leaders’ preferred (and doomed) approach to addressing homelessness.

“In fact, nothing in today’s decision prevents states, cities, and counties from going further and refusing to criminalize public camping. For its part, the Constitution provides numerous additional limits on states’ prosecutorial power, promising fair notice of laws and equal treatment under them, prohibiting selective prosecutions, and much more,” Gorsuch wrote.

This context clearly refers to local governing bodies, such as city or county councils or state legislatures. The omission of the first part of the excerpt is telling. Essentially, the county council is free to pass laws to stop certain types of law enforcement, but the KCSO has no authority to make or interpret laws. The Supreme Court’s decision does not change that. In Burien’s case, the county has no jurisdiction to determine what laws are or are not legislated there.

Where is the local outrage over the King County sheriff's decision to cancel Burien's homelessness strategy?

As is often the case, neither the local media nor county residents seem particularly concerned about the KCSO’s dramatic excesses. Members of the media and county residents outside of Burien are more likely to agree with our co-sheriffs’ sentiment, given their ideological leanings. But it would be a serious error in judgment to assume that this won’t backfire.

It’s easy to tolerate government overreach when it aligns with your beliefs. Imagine if the county’s executive director and sheriff were conservatives who refused to enforce local anti-gun ordinances or public health orders. Would the progressive media and county residents applaud that? Would they pretend it was the prerogative of local law enforcement? They would be outraged. And recent history proves it.

The “constitutional sheriff” movement, led by figures like Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer, has asserted that sheriffs hold ultimate authority in their jurisdictions, overriding even federal and state powers. These sheriffs have made headlines for refusing to enforce state gun laws and COVID mandates, asserting their right to interpret the Constitution as they see fit.

Democrats denounced this movement as a threat to democracy and the rule of law because they disagreed with the sheriffs. Now they support similar actions, as long as their puppet sheriffs are in power. That’s perfectly normal. But are they prepared to see the state’s conservative sheriffs play the same game?

Listen to “The Jason Rantz Show” weekday afternoons from 3-6 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to podcast hereFollow Jason on X, formerly known as Twitter, InstagramAnd Facebook.

Follow @