The US Supreme Court docket heard oral arguments Monday on whether or not implementing public tenting ordinances towards unhoused folks with out ample shelter is merciless and weird punishment and, due to this fact, prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the US Structure.
The case, Grants Pass v. Johnson, originated in southern Oregon. The central query earlier than the court docket revolves across the metropolis’s ordinances prohibiting unhoused people from sleeping in public locations. Through the two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments, one of many details mentioned was the excellence between standing and conduct. Within the 1962 case Robinson v. California, the Supreme Court docket dominated that it’s unconstitutional for a state to punish somebody for being a drug addict (a standing) quite than for committing a selected act reminiscent of promoting medication (conduct). On this case, the respondents argue that Grants Move’s ordinances successfully criminalize the standing of being unhoused within the metropolis. Justice Elena Kagan supported the argument by stating, “Sleeping is a organic necessity. It’s type of like respiratory. I imply, you could possibly say respiratory is conduct, too, however, presumably, you wouldn’t assume that it’s okay to criminalize inhaling public.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor identified, “You don’t arrest infants who’ve blankets over them. You don’t arrest people who find themselves sleeping on the seashore, as I are likely to do if I’ve been there some time”, she argued, “solely homeless individuals who sleep outdoor will likely be arrested.”
Representing the town, Theane Evangelis contended that this case doesn’t contain standing however focuses on public tenting regulation violations. They argue that unhoused people are punished for his or her actions, not merely their standing. In response to Chief Justice John Roberts’s query, “What if you don’t prevail?” the counsel for the town mentioned, “Town’s arms will likely be tied. Will probably be pressured to give up its public areas, because it has been.” The petitioner’s counsel then emphasised, “These are low-level fines and really quick jail phrases for repeat offenders which might be in impact in lots of different jurisdictions. This isn’t uncommon in any manner. It’s actually not merciless.”
The legal complaint dates again to 2018, when the plaintiff argued that sure people sleeping exterior in Grants Move face citations and fines when no shelters can be found, leaving them with no choices to relaxation. In 2020, the district court docket dominated that the town’s homelessness-related ordinances have been unconstitutional. Grants Move appealed this choice to the ninth Circuit Court docket, which upheld the choice in a three-judge ruling. Town then appealed to the US Supreme Court docket. Over this time period, quite a few ordinances have been established in different US cities dealing with a nationwide housing disaster. Presently the city of Los Angeles and 24 states have filed amicus briefs in favor of the town of Grants Move. Most just lately Governor DeSantis of Florida signed a bill stopping tent encampments on public land.
Addressing the rising problem of the nation’s housing disaster, the 2023 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report launched up to date statistics:
On a single evening in 2023, roughly 653,100 folks – or about 20 of each 10,000 folks in the US have been experiencing homelessness. Six in ten folks have been experiencing sheltered homelessness—that’s, in an emergency shelter (ES), transitional housing (TH),or protected haven (SH) program—whereas the remaining 4 in ten have been experiencing unsheltered homelessness in locations not meant for human habitation.
Amongst quite a few amicus briefs for the respondents, the ACLU weighed in, “when utilized to folks with nowhere else to go, the ordinances on this case disproportionately punish unavoidable, life-sustaining, and essentially human acts.”
A call in Grants Move v. Johnson is predicted this summer time and will have broad implications for the way municipalities can regulate homelessness.
