The Supreme Court is currently discussing the extent to which cities can take action to discourage individuals from sleeping in public areas, without inadvertently treating homelessness as a criminal offense. This matter has gained significant significance due to the rising number of homeless Americans, which has reached alarming levels.
In 2018, the Supreme Court allowed a ruling by a California-based appeals court to stand, which stated that an anti-camping ordinance in Boise, Idaho, could not be enforced against homeless individuals if the city did not have enough shelters.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the city’s appeal when it was declared that similar bans in Grants Pass, Oregon amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
In one of the most closely observed cases this term, Grants Pass officials argue that their penalties for camping, which begin with fines of $295 and can escalate to jail time for repeat offenses, are not inherently cruel or unusual. They contend that these measures are essential to prevent homeless encampments from overrunning parks and sidewalks, an ongoing issue in many cities since the initial ruling in 2018.
According to the city’s attorneys, the proliferation of encampments in the West has gone unchecked due to the diminishing impact of regulations on public camping. This has resulted in a surge in violent crime, drug overdoses, disease, fires, and hazardous waste. They highlighted these concerns in a legal brief, which provided a preview of the arguments presented in court on Monday.
Advocates: housing crisis won’t be solved by punishment
This Article Includes
Advocates challenging the restrictions argue that the restrictions are so broad that it is practically impossible for individuals without access to shelter to reside in Grants Pass without facing potential repercussions. With a population of approximately 38,000, this southern Oregon city suffers from a lack of affordable housing and does not have a homeless shelter for adults. Consequently, hundreds of individuals find themselves without a place to sleep.
Gloria Johnson, one of the residents who took legal action, has been disturbed multiple times by the Grants Pass police while she was sleeping in her van. She was warned that she would face fines if she didn’t vacate the premises.
According to Jesse Rabinowitz, the campaign and communications director for the National Homeless Law Center, simply imprisoning more people will not resolve America’s affordable housing crisis. This holds true not only in Grants Pass but also throughout the entire country.
Supreme Court Tackles Donald Trump Case, Abortion Bans, and Homeless Camps in Pivotal Week
The Supreme Court is facing a pivotal week as it grapples with a range of significant issues, including a case involving former President Donald Trump, abortion bans, and the legality of homeless camps. This week’s proceedings will undoubtedly shape the direction of these contentious matters, drawing national attention to the Court’s decisions.
The case involving former President Donald Trump centers on his efforts to shield his financial records from public scrutiny. The Court’s ruling on this matter will have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, setting a precedent for future disputes involving presidential authority and transparency.
Abortion bans are another critical issue on the Supreme Court’s docket this week. A Mississippi law that prohibits most abortions after 15 weeks is being challenged, potentially testing the Court’s stance on reproductive rights. This case has the potential to reshape the legal landscape surrounding abortion access in the United States, with implications for women’s reproductive freedoms nationwide.
In addition to these high-profile cases, the Supreme Court will also consider the legality of homeless camps in a case originating from Boise, Idaho. The question at hand is whether cities can enforce laws that criminalize sleeping on public property when homeless shelters are unavailable. This case brings attention to the ongoing crisis of homelessness and the legal responsibilities of local governments to address the issue.
As the Supreme Court weighs these significant cases, the nation awaits their decisions, knowing that the outcomes could have a profound impact on various aspects of American society. The Court’s rulings will shape the future of presidential accountability, reproductive rights, and the treatment of the homeless population, underscoring the Court’s role as a crucial arbiter of justice and protector of individual liberties.
Advocates argue that these rules are actually designed to force individuals without a place to stay out of the city, essentially shifting the responsibility to another locality, and potentially paving the way for a nationwide prohibition on homelessness if other cities adopt similar measures.
Officials across political spectrum want clarity
Government officials from various political backgrounds are urging the Supreme Court to provide clear guidelines on their permissible actions and limitations. This request extends beyond the officials in Grants Pass and reflects the widespread need for clarification.
California, with its high population of people experiencing homelessness, has become a significant focal point for addressing this issue. It is home to almost one-third of the nation’s homeless population, with nearly half of them lacking proper shelter.
California Governor Gavin Newsom emphasized that lower courts have consistently impeded attempts to address encampments, while also excessively scrutinizing the definition of suitable shelter options.
According to the federal government, there are more than 600,000 people experiencing homelessness on any given night in the United States. In the past year, 40% of these individuals have resorted to sleeping in public places such as under bridges, on sidewalks, in parks, cars, and abandoned buildings.
Court has said behavior, not status, can be criminalized
The challenge to Grants Pass’ rules represents a landmark case on homelessness, marking its significance in decades.
In 1962, the Supreme Court made a significant ruling regarding drug addiction in California. The court stated that while using illegal drugs could lead to arrest as it is considered a behavior, being addicted to them cannot be criminalized as it is merely a status. This decision highlights the distinction between the act of drug use and the condition of addiction.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, located in California, concluded that the same reasoning is applicable to both Boise and Grants Pass. According to the court, if individuals are forced into homelessness due to the unavailability of shelter beds, the camping bans target their state of being homeless rather than their actions.
Grants Pass and other cities officials argue that the current framework is impractical and cannot be implemented.
People often wonder when someone can be considered “involuntarily” homeless. For instance, what happens if a person refuses to go to a shelter because it doesn’t allow pets? Or if they are expelled from a shelter due to their behavior? Moreover, cities face the challenge of accurately calculating the ratio of available shelter beds to homeless individuals each night. This is crucial for determining whether there are enough vacancies to justify issuing tickets to those found sleeping in parks.
Biden administration weighs in
The outcome of the case is of interest not just to cities, but also to the federal government. Being the largest property owner in the country, the government has a stake in maintaining the cleanliness and safety of public parks and spaces. In fact, the Justice Department highlighted that the government took action to protect areas like the National Mall and the park across from the White House after they were damaged by camping activities in 1982. This led to the implementation of restrictions by the National Park Service.
The Biden administration concurs with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ stance that individuals with no alternative options should not be entirely excluded from public spaces. However, the Justice Department has informed the Supreme Court that the application of this principle should consider an individual’s specific circumstances, as the appeals court did not provide guidance on how to determine if someone is “involuntarily homeless.” Merely establishing that there is a greater number of homeless individuals than available shelter beds is insufficient, according to the Justice Department.
By the end of June, we anticipate a decision to be made.
Read More:
- License Renewal for Seniors in New Jersey: What You Need to Know
- License Renewal for Seniors in Michigan: What You Need to Know
