The Continued Illegalization of Compassion: United States v. Millis and its Effects on Humanitarian Work with the Homeless

Abstract

Every year, more cities enact food sharing restrictions that punish individuals who try to feed the homeless. These laws are often part of a general scheme to solve a city’s homelessness problem by making life so unbearable for homeless men and women that they will be forced to move elsewhere. Humanitarian aid like food sharing, however, is a form of expressive conduct whereby the speaker communicates to a particular audience in need that he or she is willing to care for them. Additionally, the speaker’s conduct may inform observers about a particular humanitarian dilemma or encourage them to become involved. In United States v. Millis, the Ninth Circuit failed to recognize an act of humanitarian aid for traveling immigrants as a form of protected speech, thereby opening the door to the creation of more harmful and unfair laws that suppress humanitarian aid.