Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Massachusetts, the Only State with a “Right-to-Shelter” Law, Faces Increasing Demand for Services

News

Massachusetts, the Only State with a “Right-to-Shelter” Law, Faces Increasing Demand for Services

Backpacks line the sidewalk in front of the Boston Night Shelter, marking their owners' places in the evening wait.

Shandra Back

In front of the Boston Night Center at 2 p.m., a line snakes along, its head marked by a green sleeping bag. A pedestrian straying one street too far from the main road might do a double take, wondering if the lime-colored lump is filled with clothing or a person. Yet this line is held not by people, but by things. Bags of all shapes and sizes sit out in daylight on the sidewalk, as if daring someone: Yeah, come on, steal from people experiencing homelessness.

The shelter system in Boston is a beast, consisting of both governmental and nongovernmental support for migrants and unhoused Americans who fall into a myriad of categories. While living in the same space, even sometimes in the same room, migrants and unhoused Americans receive different governmental treatment and support, causing a dissonance in perceptions of the other. Each group faces unique roadblocks and avenues for assistance. Yet one thing is clear: the crisis is real, and the needs are overwhelming. As icy air hits the city, this intensity only heightens.


Massachusetts is the only right-to-shelter state in the United States, a designation that legally obligates the state to provide shelter to families and individuals in need. This policy has made the state a destination for migrants and unhoused Americans seeking assistance, placing unique pressure on its shelter system. Boston has the second-highest rate of homelessness among major U.S. cities, according to a 2024 report by Boston Indicators. Yet the city also stands out with one of the lowest rates of unsheltered homelessness, ranking eighth nationwide.

Only 6% of Boston’s homeless population is unsheltered, starkly contrasting the national average of 40%. This difference highlights local policies' effectiveness and underscores the immense challenge of meeting rising demand. As the number of families and individuals seeking assistance grows, the strain on state resources intensifies, testing the limits of what even a right-to-shelter system can provide.

Since its state of emergency announcement in 2023, capping the shelter capacity at 7,500 families or 24,000 individuals, Gov. Maura Healey has rolled out many new policies to tackle the overflow. Many of these include prioritization systems for shelter placement and stay limits. Healey has also continued urging the federal government to act more on immigration reform to help manage the influx.

Rise and shine and shut the doors is at 6:30 a.m. From there, yawning residents of the Boston Night Center head off in different directions. Some go to aid centers around Boston, some to work—authorized and unauthorized—and many to the St. Francis day shelter down the street to escape the encroaching Boston cold and have something to eat in the sleepy, fluorescent cafeteria space.

The doors reopen at 8:30 p.m., yet the line begins long before reprieve from the cold. There are 55 tickets handed out each night. No ticket, no entry. Thus, the bags holding spots.

Many government emergency shelters have strict rules and regulations, while nongovernmental ones have more leeway. Run by Bay Cove Human Services, the Boston Night Center on 31 Bowker St. is just a few minutes' walk from the Government Center station. One just needs to show up—no identification or signing is needed. Unlike most shelters in Boston, men and women sleep together, making it an attractive choice for couples.

The Boston Night Shelter, located near Government Center station, offers anonymity, requiring no personal information for a night's stay—a draw for many unhoused individuals."Shandra Back

As owners reunite with their belongings in the late afternoon, the sun vanishes, revealing the icy undertone of Boston's air. In the summer months, dusk barely kisses the concrete before the doors open. Now, darkness falls four hours before opening time.

The routine is not new. Many sleep in the Boston Night Center night after night for months, yet the teeth-chattering and shivers remain unrelenting.

"In my country, it's the Caribbean," says German Garcia. "Imagine, hot land, hot land. This is crazy here for me."

Garcia stands out on the darkening street like a traffic cone—literally. As the lights flick on, they bounce off his reflective orange jacket. Dangling from his neck are a pair of white wired headphones, their port waiting for a connection. A subtle bouncing swagger and sturdy, slim build place him in his 30s, yet the silver atop his head brings this into question.

He speaks with respect, yet as he explains his journey through one country, two, three, and four, an imploring tone bursts out, and his arm movements follow suit.

Traversing from his home in Caracas, Venezuela, through many borders, the Darien Gap, and the perilous Mexican freight train known as "La Bestia," he says. "I don't know if you've heard of it," he explains, noting he had to ride it twice. His first two times, he was turned back at the border. On his third attempt in May 2023 in El Paso, Texas, he made it in.

In Missouri, the pay was too low; New York was too crowded, and the process time for migrant support was painfully slow. When he heard that Boston was a sanctuary city helping migrants, he didn't think twice. From Venezuela to Boston, he travels alone. "There are also a lot of bad people, a lot of evil along that whole route," he says. "You also see so many things... so many ugly things."

The ugliness didn't stop when he reached Boston. His first roof was the Pine Street Inn. At the largest homeless shelter in New England, "hay de todo," he says—"there's everything."

He's not a man who needs much; after his journey, he feels he can appreciate a lot from a little. Yet this place is horrible, he says. Some people violate, they steal, he says. But the worst by far is the bathroom. He says men were trying to see him naked. Eventually, to defend himself, he raised his fists and was shown the door for a month.

Yet even when his 30-day suspension was up, he vowed not to return. For the last five months, the Boston Night Shelter has been his home. It's less comfortable, he says. There are no beds. But it's a worthy price to pay to undress without raising a fist.

But the murmurings of migrant support in Boston turned out to be true. Once a taxi driver in Venezuela, Garcia is now studying to take his license test to become a chauffeur or Uber driver in the city.

As darkness intensifies, Garcia returns to his place in line, ready for a fluorescent heat that won't fill the yearning for home but will at least thaw him from the cold he never expects to get used to.

By 7 p.m., the sidewalk is packed to the curb. Some people are chatting and joking; others, are leaning and silent. The line shows many faces. Various communities convene each night behind the walls of the shelter—migrants and Americans alike.

While grateful for the resources Massachusetts offers to the unhoused, Garcia feels frustration at some homeless Americans, whom he believes are not fully utilizing those resources to better their situations. In Venezuela, there are no resources like this, he says.

"That's why I get so angry with these people who don't want to recover," he says, speaking about addiction. Each day, Garcia goes out and works to improve his life situation, he says. "And these people? Look, no, no, they don't take advantage."

A few spaces behind Garcia, leaning against the brick wall, is Andrew G. He was the first to get in line this afternoon, and his shivers increase as night encroaches slowly over the alley.

His quiet eyes peer out from the parking lot as he leans on a long metal bar, using it as a bench. In a red puffer jacket and brown leather shoes, he's sporting business attire on the bottom and casual on top.

Andrew, 23, was raised in Long Beach, California. He says he ran away from home after high school, having endured abuse from elementary through high school. First coming to New York, he stayed with a few friends but soon got into trouble with one friend's landlord. This led to a period of couch surfing and unstable living situations in New York for about three years.

From New York, much like Garcia, Andrew heard murmurings of Boston's government assistance benefits and better opportunities for the unhoused. With nowhere else to go, he came.

Since arriving in Boston in early 2022, shelters have been his main home. Yet each night in tight, enclosed places, with curfews and rules about coming and going, he must confront the trauma of his abuse while suffering from claustrophobia.

Due to increasing panic attacks, he begged his housing caseworkers to tell him all the documentation he needed to gather to apply for housing assistance.

Now, after two years in the process, Andrew is signing a lease in December to move into his own apartment in Quincy. The rent is heavily subsidized by a voucher program through the Boston mayor's office.

Yet until he has a room to himself, he still shares one with 54 other people. It used to be around 40, he says, but the numbers keep creeping up.

Upon entering the door of the home he hopes soon never to return to, he's patted down for weapons and sent downstairs to leave his bags for the night. Anyone with yoga mats or sleeping bags is allowed to bring them up to the main room.

He describes the place as both quiet and joyful. Night after night, he says the food brought in is always the same revolving menu of spaghetti or rice with meat. He's not the only one who's sick of it. Yet, those with food stamps will sometimes order in and share a pizza or another treat.

Eventually, the dark room is filled with snores and the occasional gust of wind. The lights come on at 5 a.m., and by 6:30 a.m., everyone is out.

Caseworkers have been working with shelters to help homeless Americans rehouse for decades. Yet, as migrant numbers continue to increase, the Massachusetts government is now getting resettlement agencies involved.

Jessica Cirone, the director of community engagement at the International Institute of New England (IINE), is involved in a new pilot program that complements the existing shelter system.

This pilot program, launched in March 2022, contracts IINE and other resettlement agencies to rehouse 400 migrant families living in Massachusetts emergency shelters. IINE specifically has a goal of rehousing 50 of those families over the course of the year-long contract.

Since the pilot began, Cirone says, as of November, about 23 families have been resettled, and they hope to have another 10 to 15 by the end of the year. The start has been slow because this work was unprecedented, and the bureaucracy and creation of a whole new department proved more difficult than expected. In an ideal world, the process of moving someone out of the shelter after identifying the apartment would take three weeks at most.

Three weeks maximum. Andrew shakes his head. "Migrants get housed automatically, while we as American citizens would be out here freezing in the cold waiting," he says.

Three years. That’s how long the average subsidized housing wait time in Boston is, according to the Public Health Post: an all-time high. "They're getting more special treatment than us," says Andrew.

"Tickets! Tickets!" calls out a Bay Cove employee managing the shelter’s door, who requested anonymity due to the nonprofit’s media policies. The doors aren't supposed to open until later, but as nights get colder and darker, the staff opens earlier.

People who stayed the night before can automatically receive a ticket for the following night. Then there are six tickets reserved for people who work, he explains. Two are for people coming from another shelter in Cambridge, and any remaining spots by the end are let-ins at the door, he says.

A Dominican woman stands at the front, dressed head to toe in black. With her hood pulled up and hand holding the lip of the zipper above her nose, her eyes are all that peek out. Shivering in the cold, she waits for the ticketed ones to pass her by. The line now seems pointless.

Soon, all the ticketed people have entered in ones and twos. Three remain. Another Bay Cove head peeks out from the warmth. It looks like we're at capacity, says the employee at the door, but wait just a second, and we'll check.

They don't wait. In Spanish, the woman mutters something under her breath about discrimination, and in English, she thanks him for everything and says not to worry.

The three figures silhouette against the lights beaming out from the parking garage as they walk away. The employee emerges again, sees the disappearing wisps, and the quiet, calm man lets out a deep, long yell. “Wait!” It echoes down the walls of the alley. But not far enough.

His shoulders droop. “I told them to wait.”

Back is a fourth-year journalism student at Boston University and the Podcast Director at the Boston University Center on Forced Displacement. Her work in migration and forced displacement has taken her to parts of the Middle East, Latin America, and the U.S.–Mexico border.


Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less