Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Sleeping Outdoors in Homelessness Case
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
> "Still, no one has asked us to reconsider Robinson. Nor do we see any need to do so today. Whatever its persuasive force as an interpretation of the Eighth Amendment, it cannot sustain the Ninth Circuit’s course since Martin."
> "Public camping ordinances like those before us are nothing like the law at issue in Robinson. Rather than criminalize mere status, Grants Pass forbids actions like “occupy[ing] a campsite” on public property “for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live. Under the city’s laws, it makes no difference whether the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker on vacation passing through town, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building.”
The argument is pretty interesting. You can't make something that is normally illegal legal just because of some trait of the person. If a park has posted hours or parking rules, you can't ask someone for proof they don't have a home to determine they broke the rules or not. Which is different than rounding up all of the homeless legally using the space during the day and telling them they have to leave.
They do have a problem with the 9th circuit's interpretation of the Eight Amendment. In the court's view, the eight amendment is about protecting you from unjust punishments. But you can't use that argument to determine if something is a crime.
I can't say that I like this outcome, since now cities are motivated to just run the homeless out of town rather than helping them in any way.
We as a society need to continue trying to solve the problem of homelessness. However, leveraging the 8th Amendment, in part, to do it doesn’t make sense.
The previous ruling was always kind of a kabuki theater. Homeless people often don't want to live in shelters - the exposure to crime and drugs and rules and lack of space is often worse than just living outside. So the previous ruling was still a blank check to harass homeless people so long as you dumped a bunch of money into a terrible homeless program.
I should be free to walk downtown without stepping in human shit. I should not have to worry about needles and detritus in the public park.
Agree society needs a better solution. Perhaps we can tax the ultra wealthy at an ungodly rate and simply build housing.
I am deeply suspicious of "taxes on X" because that money rarely, if ever, goes to where it's most needed. It would be great to create a tax on the wealthy which may only be used for homeless accommodations, first, services for the homeless second, and everything else last. If there was a clear 1:1 application of those tax dollars I think it would receive wide support, but I doubt politicians would allow money to be so limited like that. Not when there are so many other...issues they would rather spend it on.
The proper solution is to address the needs of the homeless (specifically, provide them a home, or at the barest minimum, some safe place to sleep). Anything else is insufficient and cold-hearted.
The ruling is that the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the constitution does not prohibit the government from banning camping on public property. That's it.
"The town had no homeless shelter, aside from one run by a religious organization that required, among other rules, attendance at Christian services."
Am I the only one that thinks it's wrong to require someone to attend a church to receive services from that church? I go to church and we will try to help anyone we can without any preconditions. Mandatory attendance just seems… disrespectful of that persons own religious beliefs, and unchristian.
I really don't think society should push the responsibility of caring for the homeless on churches for exactly the reasons you find infuriating. This town is apparently doing nothing, and the only people doing anything is the church. I don't like the church attaching strings to food/shelter, but I think it's their right to do it. I'm more frustrated that there are no alternatives.
This country should seriously grapple with homelessness. Until then, the bare minimum should be guaranteed basic shelter, and we're not even doing that.
Better not take a nap after your summer picnic!
What does someone look like that could sleep anywhere else ? That seems like we should judge how a person looks and presents, which certainly means our judgement will be dead wrong at times.
I don't like this ruling because I think it will be used to harass people for appearing poor or homeless.
"Grants Pass’s public-camping ordinances do not criminalize status. The public-camping laws prohibit actions undertaken by any person, regardless of status. It makes no difference whether the charged defendant is currently a person experiencing homelessness, a backpacker on vacation, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building."