🚨Maine’s Homelessness Crisis Protocol Law: Unequal Treatment Under the Law?🚨 Maine’s Homelessness Crisis Protocol, codified in 17-A M.R.S. §18, was enacted in 2021 with the stated goal of diverting people experiencing homelessness away from the criminal justice system for certain low-level offenses and toward services instead. Under the law, when a person who “lacks a home” commits one of a narrowly defined set of “listed offenses” because they lack housing, law enforcement must follow a special protocol emphasizing referral to crisis services, mental health professionals, emergency housing, and case management rather than arrest or prosecution. The listed offenses are strictly limited by state statute to: · Specific forms of criminal trespass (17-A M.R.S. §402(1)(C) or (F)), · Disorderly conduct involving loud or offensive behavior in public (17-A M.R.S. §501-A(1)(A)), · Indecent conduct based on public urination (17-A M.R.S. §854), · Possession of a scheduled drug based on personal use, and · Certain public drinking violations (17 M.R.S. §2003-A(2)). Crucially, as the law is structured, cities and towns do not have authority to expand the list of covered offenses beyond what state law allows. Local police departments must adopt protocols, but those protocols apply only to the offenses explicitly enumerated by the Legislature. Municipalities cannot add additional violations to receive the special “homelessness diversion” treatment. The Equal Protection Problem This framework creates two distinct classes of citizens for identical conduct. A housed individual who commits one of these listed offenses can be cited, arrested, or prosecuted in the normal course. A person experiencing homelessness who engages in the exact same behavior—if determined to be “because” they lack a home—receives mandated diversion to services instead. The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires that similarly situated persons be treated alike under the law. By carving out a special exemption based solely on housing status, the statute appears to treat citizens differently depending on whether they have a fixed residence. While the policy is framed as compassionate and aimed at addressing root causes of homelessness, differential treatment based on a person’s economic or housing circumstances raises legitimate constitutional concerns. Courts applying rational basis review would ask whether this classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Proponents would argue it is: homelessness is often intertwined with mental health issues, substance use, and lack of shelter, and diverting people to services rather than jail may reduce recidivism and public costs. Critics, however, contend that the law impermissibly creates a protected class based on status, effectively decriminalizing survival behaviors for one group while leaving others fully subject to enforcement. This selective non-enforcement based on personal circumstances could be viewed as arbitrary or as granting a form of immunity tied to poverty or housing instability. Practical and Legal Implications Because the list of covered offenses is fixed at the state level and local governments cannot expand it, the unequal treatment is uniform across Maine. Every law enforcement agency must apply the same status-based distinction. This statewide mandate amplifies the equal protection issue: the disparity is not the result of varying local policies but a deliberate legislative choice to treat one class of citizens more leniently for specific acts. No court has yet ruled on the constitutionality of 17-A M.R.S. §18. Similar status-based distinctions in other contexts have faced scrutiny, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024) addressed the opposite problem—criminalizing homelessness-related conduct—while leaving room for debate over preferential treatment schemes. Maine’s law reflects a well-intentioned effort to respond humanely to a visible crisis. Yet by design, it treats citizens unequally under the law based on whether they have a home. That core feature invites constitutional challenge under the Equal Protection Clause. Whether the statute ultimately survives judicial review will depend on whether courts find the classification rationally related to legitimate goals or whether it impermissibly discriminates on the basis of housing status. Until then, the law stands as a clear example of legislation that deliberately withholds equal application of criminal statutes to all citizens. For many residents, the real-world impact raises serious questions of public safety. How safe does a housed citizen feel walking down a downtown street where individuals openly under the influence of drugs occupy doorways, camp on sidewalks, or move erratically around them? Daily encounters with visible disorder, public intoxication, and related behaviors can create an atmosphere of unease, intimidation, and reduced quality of life. Law-abiding residents who face full enforcement for similar infractions naturally perceive the system as applying different rules to different people based solely on housing status. This not only heightens legitimate safety concerns but also breeds resentment and undermines community trust in law enforcement and local government. #CivilRights #TheJusiceDept #DOJ #RuleOfLaw #EqualJustice #FederalLaw #JusticeDepartment #TitleIX #Title9 #TitleIXMatters #ProtectTitleIX #TitleIXEnforcement #WomensSports #MAGA #SexBasedRights #EducationRights #DonaldTrump, #Trump #RealDonaldTrump #PresidentTrump #47 #AmericaFirst #Trump2028 #TrumpTrain #POTUS47 #SaveAmerica #MakeAmericaGreatAgain #Patriots #GoldenAgeOfAmerica #Republicans #Conservative #BorderSecurity #AmericaWins