Supreme Court allows politicians to criminalize homelessness

The Supreme Court has just ruled that politicians can effectively criminalize homelessness.

The court decided City of Grants Pass v. Johnson that an Oregon city may ban outdoor sleeping. The 6-3 decision fell along ideological lines.

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, calling the criminalization of sleeping in public places “unconscionable and unconstitutional.”

The case comes from the city of Grants Pass, a city of about 40,000 in southwestern Oregon, which began enforcing ordinances in 2013 making it illegal to sleep on public property using bedding — which could mean anyone using a tent, sleeping bag or blanket to get me through the night.

The city was sued by a group of homeless residents, and a federal court ruled in their favor, arguing that the anti-encampment laws were unconstitutional based on the Eighth Amendment's protection against “cruel and unusual punishment.” The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with the lower court in a 2-1 decision. Grants Pass then appealed to the Supreme Court.

His supporters The Grants Pass case involved many conservatives, who were trying to remove the homeless to enhance public safety, as well as liberal leaders in West Coast cities overwhelmed by spike to homelessness as rents soar. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) was among the dignitaries who filed an amicus brief in the case. “The United States Supreme Court can strike a balance that allows for reasonable limits on camping in public places, while respecting the dignity of those who live on our streets.” Newsom said in a statement on March.

Opponents of the case, however, fear the Supreme Court's decision could open the floodgates for jurisdictions to crack down on homeless populations. “If the Supreme Court were to allow such a punitive regime, then we would be in a race to the bottom to make it as inconvenient as possible for people to survive,” John Doe, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union in Northern California. he said Rolling rock on March.

Do says cities other than Grants Pass have taken it upon themselves to enact strict regulations that unfairly target homeless populations. In 2021, the ACLU worked with homeless residents who sued the city of Chico, a city of about 100,000 in inland Northern California, after a law forced homeless residents to move to a tarmac outside the city, where they faced high temperatures and exposure to data. . The the lawsuit was later settled.

“Jurisdictions would try to outdo each other in terms of the most costly, most punitive and most effective measures,” Do said.

Boise, Idaho, was another city that effectively banned homeless people through anti-encampment laws until the city was sued in 2018. Martin vs. Boise, reached the Ninth Circuit Court in 2019. The court ultimately ruled that unsheltered residents could not be arrested just for being homeless, limiting how cities can respond to homeless encampments with enforcement sweeps. The decision challenged leaders in cities overwhelmed by homeless residents such as Los Angeles and San Francisco to join with the conservatives in their support of the Grants Pass cause.

Do also explained that the legal argument behind the Grants Pass case is not just about homelessness, but whether people can be criminalized for their condition instead of their actions. Legal precedent on the limits of the Eighth Amendment's protection against “cruel and unusual punishment” dates back to Robinson v. California, a 1962 decision that overturned a law that criminalized drug addicts. The case established a precedent for protecting status or identity and limited laws to regulate criminal acts or conduct, a precedent that has been upheld many times since.

One of the big questions coming up in oral arguments in April is whether Supreme Court justices would consider homelessness to be voluntary or involuntary, which was one of the points raised by the Ministry of Justice in a memorandum filed in support of either party to the case.

“I think there can be a lot of questions about whether homelessness is voluntary or involuntary,” says Do, which he describes as “a really troubling context.”

Do stressed that the tactics used by Grants Pass and other cities to criminalize homelessness fail to address the root causes of the issue, such as a lack of affordable housing. “The police can't arrest the homeless on their way out,” he said.