As more people end up experiencing homelessness, they’re also facing increasingly punitive and reactionary responses from local governments and their neighbors. Such policies could become legally codified in short order, with the high court having agreed to hear arguments in Grants Pass v. Johnson.

Originally brought in 2018, the case challenged the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, over an ordinance banning camping. Both a federal judge and, later, a panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck the law down, saying that Grants Pass did not have enough available shelter to offer homeless people. As such, the law was deemed to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The ruling backed up the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling on the Martin v. City of Boise case, which said that punishing or arresting people for camping in public when there are no available shelter beds to take them to instead constituted a violation of the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause in the Eighth Amendment. That applied to localities in the Ninth Circuit’s area of concern and has led to greater legal scrutiny even as cities and counties push for more punitive and restrictive anti-camping laws. In fact, Grants Pass pushed to get the Supreme Court to hear the case, and several nominally liberal cities and states on the West Coast are backing its argument. If the Supreme Court overturns the previous Grants Pass and Boise rulings, it would open the door for cities, states, and counties to essentially criminalize being unhoused on a massive scale.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240223125412/https://newrepublic.com/article/178678/supreme-court-criminalize-homeless-case

  • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    So the Supreme Court is willing to force states to provide shelter and food to homeless people?

    I didn’t know the Supreme Court justices were socialists.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Oh, no no no, that would be protecting human rights, which conservatives really aren’t about. They want to protect states’ rights and local governments’ rights to harass and brutalize humans. That’s their idea of liberty.

      • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        In fact, Grants Pass pushed to get the Supreme Court to hear the case, and several nominally liberal cities and states on the West Coast are backing its argument.

        How do you explain the liberal cities and states on the West Coast, then?

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Liberal does not mean progressive.

          The term liberal was used to refer to fiscal policies, until Republicans in the Reagan era began misusing the word as a pejorative for Democrats. Most Democrats (especially leadership) are not progressives. Most elected Democrats are neo-liberals, even in blue cities. Neo-liberals are conservatives.

          We do not have a viable progressive party in the U.S. We have a conservative party and a more conservative party.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Much like doing genocide and supporting the police, there’s a bipartisan consensus on inflicting violence on unhoused people.

          • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            “If they wanted their concerns to be taken seriously they should have made a donation to someone’s campaign!”

        • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          9 months ago

          Too many neolibs, not enough social Democrats and similar. A number of socialized programs would cut the homeless population. And we probably wouldn’t have an opioid crisis if we had socialized healthcare (because pushing opioids was done for profits after all)

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      No see the idea is to force states to place homeless people in for profit prisons. Pure capitalism!

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Landlords evicting people would also be liable since they directly caused a crime to be committed.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yep. But you can’t just give people handouts, so it’ll be mandatory and come with a period of enslavement