I’ve previously posted about a number of recent Supreme Court cases that have ignored long-time precedents, cherry-picked history, or otherwise done violence to the philosophical basis of the Constitution and the rule of law. One that I haven’t previously addressed falls into a somewhat different category: it’s just wrong and mean-spirited.
The case–Grants Pass v. Johnson–involved an Oregon city that had passed ordinances prohibiting people from sleeping outside in public using a blanket, pillow or cardboard sheet to lie on, even if those people have no other option, i.e., are homeless.
Those challenging the ordinances relied upon the earlier case of Robinson v. California, which had held that it is “cruel and unusual” to criminalize a person’s status, but the majority held that Robinson didn’t apply–that the ordinances penalize behavior rather than status. As a result of that analysis, municipalities can do what Grants Pass did, and subject unhoused people to hundreds of dollars in fines and even jail time for sleeping outside, even when the city admittedly lacks enough shelter beds for them.
The decision reversed a far more reasonable opinion by the Ninth Circuit; that Court held that punishing unhoused people for sleeping in public when they have no access to shelter violates the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
The ACLU submitted a brief on behalf of the challengers, and issued a statement on the decision.
“It is hard to imagine a starker example of excessive punishment than fining and jailing a person for the basic human act of sleeping,” said Scout Katovich, staff attorney in the Trone Center for Justice and Equality. “As Justice Sotomayor’s dissent powerfully acknowledged, sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. We cannot arrest our way out of homelessness, and we will continue litigating against cities that are emboldened by this decision to treat unhoused people as criminals.”
The American Civil Liberties Union submitted a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that punishing unhoused people for sleeping outside when they lack access to shelter violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. As the brief highlights, the original intent and meaning of the Eighth Amendment and its application in more than a century of Supreme Court cases make clear that the government cannot impose punishment that is disproportionate to the crime.
There is obviously a great deal more that can be said about this decision, but the practical reality is that it allows local governments to criminalize a social problem. Allowing municipalities to punish homelessness does absolutely nothing to ameliorate the problem. (For that matter, allowing fines to be assessed is asinine; people who cannot afford a bed don’t have resources to pay fines.)
San Diego takes a very different, and far smarter approach to the issue. People who are unsheltered or living in their cars can access parking lots that have been modified to provide more than just a place to stay.
San Diego currently operates four lots where people living in cars or RVs can park overnight, with access to restrooms, services and treatment.
The H Barracks location adds 190 parking spaces, which will nearly double the capacity of the city’s safe parking program.
It’ll be located on five acres between the airport and Liberty Station, and it would serve the large population of people living in oversized vehicles in the Peninsula area.
The pet-friendly lot will be open overnight — 6pm-7am — with onsite security, as well as bathrooms and showers, according to the report.
The lots provide onsite services for case management, housing, health care, mental and behavioral health, plus substance-abuse treatment resources, and patrons are prohibited from drug and alcohol use. Registered sex offenders are not allowed.
The Supreme Court’s tone-deaf opinion effectively allowing municipalities to criminalize homelessness is a classic example of hitting people when they’re down. As a matter of law, it is fatally flawed; as a matter of policy, it’s clueless.
Calling homelessness a “behavior” rather than a status suggests that it is chosen–that it represents a decision made by an individual to forego habitation. Allowing local officials to punish unhoused people is simply cruel. As numerous critics of the decision have pointed out, governments cannot punish their way out of homelessness and poverty. What is needed is evidence-based solutions.
Officials in San Diego obviously recognize that. It will be interesting to see whether that city’s innovative approach results in a reduction of the number of homeless, and whether it will develop follow-up measures aimed at more permanent solutions.
Meanwhile, We the People really need to do something about our rogue Supreme Court…
The usual question applies: what can We the People do about the “rogue Supreme Court”?
It seems to me that the reasoning by the right-wing justices for upholding such an abhorrent law is an offshoot of the prosperity doctrine, where people who are struggling and failing are understood to be undergoing a valid punishment from god. And if god has determined they should fail, then their struggles are _deserved._ It’s a horrific idea.
The post doesn’t discuss _why_ municipalities make a law like this. I think the reason is simple: the people who _aren’t_ struggling–business owners and homeowners, etc.–don’t like to see homeless people. Maybe a little is just their discomfort. Mostly, I think, it is the perceived impact on their bottom line: business earnings; home prices; public perception of the area; etc. Basically, proponents of these laws show themselves to be callous, and utterly without empathy or charity.
The Supreme Court will continue even more strongly down this same path if Trump/Vance are elected.
Homeless people will have to hide like wild animals to sleep while Justice Thomas and Ginny sleep in their million-dollar gift motor home.
We know that housing first works, but one condition that must be present might not be possible in many locations across the country. That is, the city must have available low cost housing. We might find some in deteriorating areas of a city. Buy up abandoned properties and eminent domain run down rentals. Fix them and start putting the homeless in them. It probably won’t end the problem, but it seems better than ” debtor’s prison.”
The San Diego solution of a parking lot is far better than locking people up. However, many “houseless” persons don’t have cars either and can’t afford them. Homeless areas I’ve seen in Seattle and Phoenix have no “cars” or “RVs”. They just have tents many of which are made out of drop cloths and cardboard. What to do about those people?
The supreme is incapable of experiencing shame. This is another “let them eat cake” decision by judges who are sure they are supreme to everyone else.
Court. Omission error.
The Republican war on homelessness, much like its war on drugs, is designed to create an abundance of slave labor for states. This violation of fundamental human rights is perfectly constitutional under the 13th Amendment: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Behavior v. Status? In the case of the homeless, their behavior IS their status. They have no money and cannot afford to live in a rented room or apartment. That status is called POVERTY and the behavior is called SURVIVAL.
It’s like banks charging fees for overdrawn checking accounts: They want more of what they already know a person doesn’t have enough of to begin with.
Of course, everything this court does seems to favor the rich and corrupt who put them there, Republicans, of course. How to fix it? Load the Senate with filibuster-proof Democrats and expand the court to 13, one Justice for every Federal district. Oh, and the corrupt Justices like Thomas and Alito? Impeach them and vote them off the court altogether.
Hitting people when they are down, fatally flawed laws, and clueless policy. That pretty much describes today’s GOP in a nutshell (so to speak).
As Vern says, “Follow the money.” In the case of homelessness, you’ll want to follow billionaire Joe Lonsdale, who founded the Cicero Institute. I found an article in the City Journal from Joe, co-founder of Palantir, regarding his institute’s push in Georgia under Governor Kemp. Joe lives in the Austin area and claims Texas has the most sane business policies in the country.
In his article, he writes, “They reject the Marxist idea that American capitalism causes homelessness, and that only far-left activism can fix it. Instead, they are ushering in a new era in homeless policy, where accountability is king. They won’t be the last to do so.”
The billionaire, made rich by CIA Venture Capital Funding, is the prototypical Silicon Valley Libertarian who moved from CA to the Austin area. He and his Institute espouse “treatment first” versus “housing first” for the homeless. No more free housing. Heavy fines and treatment first. Make homelessness illegal.
The SCOTUS just upheld his policies, and they have many more policy reform ideas:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/georgia-takes-a-stand-on-homeless-policy
https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/cicero-institute-applauds-grants-pass-scotus-decision/
There are people who choose to be homeless. But that is made based on just how awful the other options are. Just one example that I am aware of as a LGBTIQ person (and there are certainly others), most shelters will not allow a lesbian couple with children to come in as a family. And some shelters won’t even admit a queer person in for shelter at all.
The cruelty is a feature, not a bug. People that make these laws don’t have a clue what it is like to live on the margins of society. I think our homelessness problem started with Reagan. He closed all of the mental health hospitals and every other state followed so that now, not only do the mentally challenged have no doctors or hospitals to get treatment, they force them into homelessness so that they can fill up their for-profit prisons. Those that are having a terrible time of getting by are now forced to live in their cars (if they have one) or on the streets. Follow the money.
Scotus is reversing everything the constitution stands for. I’m disgusted.
The greatness of a society is determined by how well they treat the weak/aged/ill among them. US with these laws is heading the wrong way. If we allow the majority justices to continue on their royal/elitist trajectory this country will change drastically in a inhumane way. How do we stop the continuing advance of the Maga Coup?
One of my father’s favorite quotations and now mine is this one, from Anatole France: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” These laws and judgments do nothing to address the systemic and root causes that result in homelessness.
Yes, Aging One, California once boasted the best MH system in the country, until St. Reagan became gov’r!
The Heritage Foundation, and the GOP have long been sources of cruelty .
Fill the Senate with Dems, as Vernon suggests, and build out the Supreme Court.
Fountain Square in Indianapolis is supposedly the location of a new low barrier shelter for the homeless. Whether this has been completed yet or not and what the results are if any I don’t particularly know. It seems like it would be a good alternative to Wheeler Mission as not all homeless people may want to attend a Christ-Centered Program. To me it seems apparent that there needs to be more low income affordable housing. I am on a low income (I work a job seasonally that helps me out) so I cannot afford even a studio apartment that are $1200-1400 a month . I would also say after having a job briefly at a daycare that there is a need for affordable daycare and free diapers. I say Free Diapers because daycares ask parents to provide their children’s diapers and diapers are expensive.
I wish Leonard Leo, Harlan Crowe, and any others who are financing lavish gifts to Supreme Court Justices would spend their money on the homeless and hire them. That seems a much better use of their money than the millions they have spent on Clarence Thomas who has a job, a home, a comfortable salary, and a wife with a 6 figure salary.