Staff Reports
The U.S. Supreme Court is navigating a complex case involving the rights of homeless people and the extent to which cities can regulate them. In City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, the central issue is whether the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, can enforce laws that prohibit sleeping and camping in public spaces. A lawsuit was brought against the city by two homeless individuals, who claim that such laws infringe upon their Eighth Amendment protection against "cruel and unusual" punishment. The situation is as perplexing as untangling a knot of earphone cords.
During the oral arguments, the justices seemed to fall into ideological camps. Some expressed concern about punishing homeless individuals without providing viable alternatives, while others maintained that such decisions were not within the Supreme Court's purview. It’s like being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with neither option offering an easy way out.
I believe the key word is "encampment." The is a vast difference between someone dozing off on a park bench and setting up a tent with plans to stay there.
Justices seem to take city’s side in homeless encampment regulation https://t.co/gzGBYvPrTL via @dcexaminer
— Sorgatoni (@Sorghaghtani) April 23, 2024
This debate brings to mind the 1962 Supreme Court case Robinson v. California, which concluded that criminalizing drug addiction was unconstitutional, as it represented an "involuntary state of being." Lawyers representing Grants Pass argue that homelessness regulations should be left to local governments, while the plaintiffs assert that laws targeting homeless people simply displace the problem. It’s like moving chess pieces around without ever resolving the core issue.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled against Boise, Idaho, for penalizing homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors or camping, stipulating that cities must provide enough shelter space before they can issue citations or fines. However, lawyers for Grants Pass cautioned that this ruling could lead to a surge in homeless encampments across the country, akin to trying to contain a wildfire with a garden hose.
The justices grappled with defining homelessness and questioned whether someone offered shelter could still face citations for sleeping outdoors. It's like solving a Rubik's Cube where each twist affects someone’s life. The majority of the justices seem to suggest that these are matters better addressed by local governments rather than the Supreme Court. The hope is for a resolution that balances compassion with pragmatic governance, but the road ahead might be long and uncertain, as Washington, D.C., isn't known for expeditious solutions.
