Federal Bill Stops Penalizing Homeless for Survival Acts on Public Land, Sets High Bar for Shelter Alternatives

The newly proposed Housing not Handcuffs Act of 2025 is a major policy shift aimed squarely at the decriminalization of homelessness on federal property. Simply put, this bill says federal agencies cannot fine or penalize an individual experiencing homelessness just for performing basic survival activities—things like sleeping, resting, eating, or protecting their belongings from the weather—on public land, provided those activities are generally allowed there.

The Right to Exist: What the Bill Protects

This legislation essentially grants individuals experiencing homelessness the right to carry out life-sustaining activities without fear of penalty on any federal property, including parks and sidewalks. It explicitly protects actions like asking for or accepting donations, keeping personal property private and secure (meaning no unreasonable searches or seizures), and even staying overnight in a lawfully parked vehicle or RV. For the average person, this means a significant reduction in the cycle of fines and arrests that often prevents unhoused individuals from stabilizing their lives.

The Catch: Defining 'Adequate Shelter'

Here’s where the bill gets really specific—and where the rubber meets the road for implementation. The protection for these survival activities is only lifted if the government can provide an "Adequate Alternative Indoor Space." But this isn't just any cot in a gym. The bill sets an exceptionally high bar for what qualifies as “adequate.”

This alternative space must be free, available 24/7, and cannot require the person to give up any of their existing rights. Crucially, it must accommodate the individual's specific needs, including pets, partners, family members, support people, and all of their possessions. For example, a standard shelter that forces a person to give up their emotional support animal or separate from their spouse would not count as adequate under this law. This strict definition means that simply pointing to an overcrowded, restrictive shelter won't be enough to justify penalizing someone for sleeping outside.

Legal Muscle for the Unhoused

If a federal official violates these protections, the bill gives the harmed individual—and the Attorney General—the power to sue in federal court to stop the violation. This is a game-changer because if the individual wins, the court must make the government pay for their litigation costs and reasonable attorney fees. This provision, known as fee-shifting, makes it much more practical for individuals with limited means to challenge federal enforcement actions.

Furthermore, the bill creates a "necessity defense" in court. If an unhoused person is charged with breaking a law (say, for sleeping in a prohibited area), they can argue that they only did so because no adequate indoor space was available. The burden of proof then shifts to the government to prove that a suitable alternative was actually available. This is a powerful tool to prevent the criminalization of poverty.

Real-World Impact and Implementation Hurdles

For federal land managers, this bill drastically limits their ability to clear encampments or issue citations unless they can demonstrate the availability of truly comprehensive and accommodating shelter options. Given the strict requirements for what constitutes “adequate alternative space”—especially the need to accommodate pets and all possessions—many existing shelters likely won't meet the standard. This means federal agencies will face pressure to either fund and create these high-standard alternatives or simply stop penalizing survival activities on their property.

While the goal is to protect vulnerable people and reduce their interaction with the criminal justice system, the medium level of vagueness around what fully “accommodates” every need (like a person's specific disability or the volume of their possessions) could lead to initial legal battles. However, the bill instructs courts to interpret the law broadly to ensure its goals are met, suggesting a strong preference for protecting the individual's right to survive.