Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Sleeping Outdoors in Homelessness Case(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Sleeping Outdoors in Homelessness Case
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/politics/supreme-court-homelessness.html
30 comments
The court's previous ruling on this was that you couldn't make "being homeless" illegal, and so laws against things like sleeping in the park were only valid if there was a reasonable alternative available. Generally this meant that the municipality needed to provide homeless shelters.
I can't say that I like this outcome, since now cities are motivated to just run the homeless out of town rather than helping them in any way.
I can't say that I like this outcome, since now cities are motivated to just run the homeless out of town rather than helping them in any way.
> Generally this meant that the municipality needed to provide homeless shelters.
The previous ruling was always kind of a kabuki theater. Homeless people often don't want to live in shelters - the exposure to crime and drugs and rules and lack of space is often worse than just living outside. So the previous ruling was still a blank check to harass homeless people so long as you dumped a bunch of money into a terrible homeless program.
The previous ruling was always kind of a kabuki theater. Homeless people often don't want to live in shelters - the exposure to crime and drugs and rules and lack of space is often worse than just living outside. So the previous ruling was still a blank check to harass homeless people so long as you dumped a bunch of money into a terrible homeless program.
Living outside also exposes you to crime, drugs, and danger too. Sometimes homeless people end up "captured" by gangs using threat of violence or cutting off a vice, and are forced to do things like sell drugs, sell scrap, or sell themselves to keep up with the taxation imposed by these gangs. Is everyone captured on the street like this? Of course not, but a few are, and there's really no recourse or protection. Are things maybe not so pretty in all shelters? Of course, but I'd take a facility where at least there is some recourse for bad action where it happens over the street where there is no recourse at all and you might end up as a modern slave to a gang member.
Well, the way that it was explained to me is that tent-living is kind of the "middle class" lifestyle among people who identify as homeless. The main problem with the shelters is that you don't have a fixed address, you don't have privacy, and you don't a way to collect and store possessions. Living in a tent or camp gives you self-sufficiency and the ability to make more choices.
Yeah. Reading the opinion, the logical argument of criminalizing a status (homeless) versus an action (camping in public) makes sense. The action applies to everyone.
We as a society need to continue trying to solve the problem of homelessness. However, leveraging the 8th Amendment, in part, to do it doesn’t make sense.
We as a society need to continue trying to solve the problem of homelessness. However, leveraging the 8th Amendment, in part, to do it doesn’t make sense.
So if you are homeless, how do you avoid running afoul of the law?
I really don't like this ruling. My reasoning is that a public park, for instance, is public property available for use to everyone. Anywhere you go will either be private, or public property. The homeless cannot sleep on private land, fine, but it's coldly unreasonable to say they cannot sleep in the park at night. During the day, ok, move along, I can accept that but.. The homeless are humans and we should stop treating them as a general nuisance. Any one of us could just as easily find ourselves homeless, falling from great success.
https://priceonomics.com/what-its-like-to-fail/
https://priceonomics.com/what-its-like-to-fail/
On the other hand, the homeless being in the park generally leads to trash - needles, excrement, etc. The homeless occupying public lands and making them unfit for other people deprives those other people of their right to use the park.
I should be free to walk downtown without stepping in human shit. I should not have to worry about needles and detritus in the public park.
Agree society needs a better solution. Perhaps we can tax the ultra wealthy at an ungodly rate and simply build housing.
I should be free to walk downtown without stepping in human shit. I should not have to worry about needles and detritus in the public park.
Agree society needs a better solution. Perhaps we can tax the ultra wealthy at an ungodly rate and simply build housing.
You're not wrong, and neither is Molitor5901. As society currently stands, one group of people is fundamentally in conflict with another group of people. Neither group is doing anything wrong.
The proper solution is to address the needs of the homeless (specifically, provide them a home, or at the barest minimum, some safe place to sleep). Anything else is insufficient and cold-hearted.
The proper solution is to address the needs of the homeless (specifically, provide them a home, or at the barest minimum, some safe place to sleep). Anything else is insufficient and cold-hearted.
[deleted]
I agree with you 100%. We need a better solution. A narrow tax on the wealthy specifically for homelessness would be fantastic.
I am deeply suspicious of "taxes on X" because that money rarely, if ever, goes to where it's most needed. It would be great to create a tax on the wealthy which may only be used for homeless accommodations, first, services for the homeless second, and everything else last. If there was a clear 1:1 application of those tax dollars I think it would receive wide support, but I doubt politicians would allow money to be so limited like that. Not when there are so many other...issues they would rather spend it on.
I am deeply suspicious of "taxes on X" because that money rarely, if ever, goes to where it's most needed. It would be great to create a tax on the wealthy which may only be used for homeless accommodations, first, services for the homeless second, and everything else last. If there was a clear 1:1 application of those tax dollars I think it would receive wide support, but I doubt politicians would allow money to be so limited like that. Not when there are so many other...issues they would rather spend it on.
The behavior of the homeless people living in a public park often makes said park unusable for everyone except them. How do you reconcile that fact with your opinion that "public parks are for everyone"? A public park provides far broader use to the general public when used as a park for all, as opposed to a campsite, chop shop, or drug dealing hotspot.
Yeah but this point has nothing to do with the actual ruling.
The ruling is that the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the constitution does not prohibit the government from banning camping on public property. That's it.
The ruling is that the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the constitution does not prohibit the government from banning camping on public property. That's it.
This will lead to a game of 'homeless hot potato' among neighborhoods in larger cities as each pass ordinances that ban various 'homeless activities' in their borders.
I disagree with this ruling, but something that really, really pissed me off is this paragraph:
"The town had no homeless shelter, aside from one run by a religious organization that required, among other rules, attendance at Christian services."
Am I the only one that thinks it's wrong to require someone to attend a church to receive services from that church? I go to church and we will try to help anyone we can without any preconditions. Mandatory attendance just seems… disrespectful of that persons own religious beliefs, and unchristian.
"The town had no homeless shelter, aside from one run by a religious organization that required, among other rules, attendance at Christian services."
Am I the only one that thinks it's wrong to require someone to attend a church to receive services from that church? I go to church and we will try to help anyone we can without any preconditions. Mandatory attendance just seems… disrespectful of that persons own religious beliefs, and unchristian.
There aren't many good christians left. A lot of churches in socal today have metal gates over their front steps to prevent anyone from sheltering on them. Growing up, I figured big city churches always opened their doors and pews for people to sleep, but apparently that was a trope from hollywood and not what many churches today at least do for their local community.
There's a church in my area that has some signs and banners about welcoming all people, but also has a "no trespassing" sign. I approached the clergy of the church about it, and they tell me that the police requires the no trepassing sign, or else the police won't respond to incidents. I hate that dissonance.
Most Christian churches in America are elitist, hermetically-sealed cults. They come together one day a week to celebrate how superior and self-righteous they are, while stepping over homeless people and looking down on them the other 6 days and 22 hours of the week.
I don't like it either. But in a marginally better world, there would be several different places to find food and shelter. If a Christian who is homeless goes to shelter at that church, then that may make sense for them and they may find it a comfort, whereas anyone else is free to go somewhere else.
I really don't think society should push the responsibility of caring for the homeless on churches for exactly the reasons you find infuriating. This town is apparently doing nothing, and the only people doing anything is the church. I don't like the church attaching strings to food/shelter, but I think it's their right to do it. I'm more frustrated that there are no alternatives.
This country should seriously grapple with homelessness. Until then, the bare minimum should be guaranteed basic shelter, and we're not even doing that.
I really don't think society should push the responsibility of caring for the homeless on churches for exactly the reasons you find infuriating. This town is apparently doing nothing, and the only people doing anything is the church. I don't like the church attaching strings to food/shelter, but I think it's their right to do it. I'm more frustrated that there are no alternatives.
This country should seriously grapple with homelessness. Until then, the bare minimum should be guaranteed basic shelter, and we're not even doing that.
If that church doesn't lack the values of helping the downtrodden, they appear to lack the spine to advocate for or defend them. How Christian of them.
What a nice ruling, showing so much compassion, generosity and common sense, that it would make a decent Phillip K Dick Story.
"Flow my Tears!" the policeman said...
This is… surprising. Evidently you are ok if you are awake, but as soon as you fall asleep you can be arrested? You can only stay awake so long. This seems against human nature.
Better not take a nap after your summer picnic!
Better not take a nap after your summer picnic!
Most cities have posted hours you are technically allowed to be at the park. The majority opinion actually discusses this exact point:
"Grants Pass’s public-camping ordinances do not criminalize status. The public-camping laws prohibit actions undertaken by any person, regardless of status. It makes no difference whether the charged defendant is currently a person experiencing homelessness, a backpacker on vacation, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building."
"Grants Pass’s public-camping ordinances do not criminalize status. The public-camping laws prohibit actions undertaken by any person, regardless of status. It makes no difference whether the charged defendant is currently a person experiencing homelessness, a backpacker on vacation, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building."
Obviously it won’t be enforced against people who look like they could sleep anywhere else.
who look like they could sleep anywhere else.
What does someone look like that could sleep anywhere else ? That seems like we should judge how a person looks and presents, which certainly means our judgement will be dead wrong at times.
I don't like this ruling because I think it will be used to harass people for appearing poor or homeless.
What does someone look like that could sleep anywhere else ? That seems like we should judge how a person looks and presents, which certainly means our judgement will be dead wrong at times.
I don't like this ruling because I think it will be used to harass people for appearing poor or homeless.
> "Still, no one has asked us to reconsider Robinson. Nor do we see any need to do so today. Whatever its persuasive force as an interpretation of the Eighth Amendment, it cannot sustain the Ninth Circuit’s course since Martin."
> "Public camping ordinances like those before us are nothing like the law at issue in Robinson. Rather than criminalize mere status, Grants Pass forbids actions like “occupy[ing] a campsite” on public property “for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live. Under the city’s laws, it makes no difference whether the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker on vacation passing through town, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building.”
The argument is pretty interesting. You can't make something that is normally illegal legal just because of some trait of the person. If a park has posted hours or parking rules, you can't ask someone for proof they don't have a home to determine they broke the rules or not. Which is different than rounding up all of the homeless legally using the space during the day and telling them they have to leave.
They do have a problem with the 9th circuit's interpretation of the Eight Amendment. In the court's view, the eight amendment is about protecting you from unjust punishments. But you can't use that argument to determine if something is a crime.