Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: It’s almost a law
Next Post: Showcasing The Retailers Who Make Illinois Work
Posted in:
* CBS News…
The Supreme Court on Friday sided with a small Oregon town that imposes civil punishments on homeless people for sleeping in public spaces, finding that enforcement of its anti-camping rules is not prohibited by the Eighth Amendment’s protections from cruel and unusual punishment.
The 6-3 decision from the court in the case known as City of Grants Pass v. Johnson is its most significant involving homelessness in decades. It comes as cities nationwide grapple with a spike in the number of people without access to shelter, driven in part by high housing costs and the end of aid programs launched in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The ruling is likely to clear the way for state and local officials to mete out civil punishments in an effort to curtail homeless encampments, which have spread throughout the West as a result of a federal appeals court decision in the case involving anti-camping ordinances from Grants Pass, Oregon.
A number of state and local leaders across party lines have defended camping bans as necessary for protecting public health and safety, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found laws imposing civil penalties on homeless people for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go are unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs who challenged the law had cited Robinson v. California. The 1962 Supreme Court decision held that criminalizing the status of narcotics addiction, with a possible punishment of 90 days in jail, is cruel and unusual.
The Supreme Court in Robinson bypassed a due process clause argument in reading the Eighth Amendment to impose a limit on what a state may criminalize, Gorsuch said.
* Rolling Stone magazine…
Supporters of Grants Pass’ case included many conservatives, who have been seeking to remove homeless populations to boost public safety, as well as liberal leaders in West Coast cities overwhelmed by a spike in homelessness as rent prices soar. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) was among the high-profile figures to file an amicus brief in the case. “The United States Supreme Court can establish a balance that allows enforcement of reasonable limits on camping in public spaces, while still respecting the dignity of those living on our streets,” Newsom said in a statement in March.
Opponents of the case, however, fear that the Supreme Court’s ruling could open the floodgates for jurisdictions cracking down on homeless populations. “If the Supreme Court were to allow for such a punitive regime, then we’re going to have a race to the bottom to make it as uncomfortable as possible for people to survive,” John Do, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Northern California, told Rolling Stone in March.
* From the decision…
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.
* From Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent…
Grants Pass’s Ordinances criminalize being homeless. The status of being homeless (lacking available shelter) is defined by the very behavior singled out for punishment (sleeping outside). The majority protests that the Ordinances “do not criminalize mere status.” Ante, at 21. Say- ing so does not make it so. Every shred of evidence points the other way. The Ordinances’ purpose, text, and enforcement confirm that they target status, not conduct. For someone with no available shelter, the only way to comply with the Ordinances is to leave Grants Pass altogether.
* Chicago Coalition for the Homeless…
Today, Friday, June 28, 2024, Chicago Coalition for the Homeless (CCH) is deeply disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court limited the rights of people experiencing homelessness in a decision in the Johnson v. Grants Pass case.
Originating from Grants Pass, Oregon, the Supreme Court decision allows cities to penalize people for sleeping outdoors if they even have a blanket to stay warm, even when they have nowhere else to go. Lower court decisions in the case found that fining and arresting people in those circumstances was “cruel and unusual punishment” under the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The Court’s decision does not recognize the reality of the lived experience of people with no place to go. As noted in the first sentence of Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime.”
There is a severe shortage of affordable housing in Chicago, Illinois, and throughout the country and a lack of emergency shelter to address the need. Anti-bedding ordinances, like those at issue in the case, would be particularly harmful to people experiencing homelessness in climates like Chicago and Illinois. Any such measures passed here would punish Black Chicagoans and Illinoisans, who disproportionately experience homelessness.
“Fining and penalizing people experiencing homelessness does not solve homelessness. Indeed, criminalizing homelessness only serves to exacerbate it,” said Patricia Nix-Hodes, Director of the Law Project of CCH. “The solution to homelessness is to provide permanent affordable housing.”
Chicago Coalition for the Homeless (CCH), alongside 27 partner organizations, filed an amicus brief in the case, raising the importance of the case and the impact on people experiencing homelessness in Chicago and Illinois. Pro bono partner Much Shelist supported CCH in filing the brief, and attorneys Steven Blonder, Josh Leavitt, and Charlotte Franklin were instrumental in drafting the brief. Legal Council for Health Justice and Law Center for Better Housing also partnered on the brief.
CCH joined the National Homelessness Law Center and hundreds of other organizations that submitted more than 40 amicus briefs in support of people experiencing homelessness.
* Fox 2 St. Louis back in March…
A growing number of Madison County cities are banning homeless camps on public property. Godfrey and Granite City passed ordinances last week. Wood River and Alton previously passed bans. […]
Madison County State’s Attorney Tom Haine is advocating for all county communities to adopt similar regulations and is collaborating with the Madison County Board to pass an ordinance for the county’s unincorporated areas. The aim is to create a consistent strategy across the county, avoiding a disjointed mix of regulations.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 12:10 pm
Previous Post: It’s almost a law
Next Post: Showcasing The Retailers Who Make Illinois Work
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Arresting people for being poor is cruel and unusual, no matter what SCOTUS wants us to believe. We all know conservatives don’t think poor people are people, after all, so this isn’t a surprise.
I need a drink
Comment by Perrid Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 12:13 pm
- Grants Pass’s public-camping ordinances do not criminalize status. -
How thoughtful of them to mention that. It’s ok to be homeless, just find somewhere else to do it.
Comment by Excitable Boy Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 12:15 pm
I don’t think that criminalizing homelessness solves the societal problem of homelessness.
But fighting to let people set up camps and tent cities on public and private places doesn’t solve the societal problem of homelessness either and it can lead to other criminal activity and economic harms near where these places get set up.
There’s so much I disagree with coming out of SCOTUS these days but this one is pretty low on my concern list.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 12:19 pm
If the local government offers an alternative to sleeping in public places — such as substance treatment centers — I don’t have a problem with telling them they can’t claim public spaces as their home.
There is an encampment just a few blocks from my home, and the poor people living there clearly need help. Every time I ride or walk by there are empty liquor bottles and needles on the ground, and it pains me. But I also see them refusing help and preferring to live on the sidewalk.
Comment by Just Me 2 Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 12:33 pm
Lets think about this rationally for a moment. Homeless people do not want to camp in public places, especially during the frigid Chicago winters. To suggest otherwise is completely nonsensical.
There are shelters but often these are unsafe.
Provide affordable housing or well managed shelters and there will be very few homeless.
Comment by low level Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 12:46 pm
Civil penalties? What, you are going to make the person who can’t afford a roof over their heads to pay a fine?
This is the SCt essentially saying it’s ok to roust these folks and move them outside of your jurisdiction.
Comment by Henry Francis Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 12:55 pm
low level - I am have to respectfully disagree with you here. Most people facing homelessness struggle with mental health or substance addiction. They don’t have the same rational thought as you or I.
But I agree they need help - not jail or civil penalties.
Comment by Just Me 2 Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 1:06 pm
Make housing affordable.
When governments try to make housing affordable to try and build shelters, then sub-units of government or the local politician pipe up and complain about the type of people that might move in. They also complain about homeless camps. Something has to be done.
In very high cost of living areas is startling how many homeless are folks that work that otherwise can’t afford rent.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 1:08 pm
The case was strictly on 8th amendment grounds, which was an odd approach. The court didn’t say such ordinances addressing the issue this way were ok under any statutory or constitutional analysis, in fact they go out of their way to say other protections might be available based on a persons status as homeless, just not the 8th amendment for a general public camping prohibition.
Comment by fs Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 1:11 pm
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. Anatole France
Comment by Doug Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 1:14 pm
Homelessness isn’t a crime, but cities should have the right to remove people.
Comment by Joe Biden Playing Golf Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 1:29 pm
==struggle with mental health or substance addiction==
Indeed. but again, no matter what drugs you are on, it gets awfully cold during the winter. Given the choice between safe, affordable housing and a tent, most people will take the housing.
Comment by low level Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 1:42 pm
And Rich, further to the point, I am seeing a dramatic increase of homeless downtown, very close to where you used to live. Its tragic, many mothers with children, not just men like you used to see. Now its families w small kids. Clearly its more than just addicts on the streets.
Comment by low level Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 1:46 pm
Keywords “is not prohibited”
SCOTUS simply affirmed the right of the town to enforce a civil punishment for sleeping in public spaces- it mandates nothing. Towns and cities would have to affirmatively pass an ordinance to make it take effect. Well-informed citizens with strong opinions on the matter can make their wishes known by using their voices to express opinions, running for office, or contributing to candidates that they agree with. the net effect of this ruling in most places will be nothing -
Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 1:47 pm
===it mandates nothing===
LOL
You’ve reached pinnacle mansplaining with that one.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 1:56 pm
Is it just me or is the Alt Right Majority in the US Supreme Court at war with decency?
Comment by Frumpy White Guy Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 1:57 pm
some places will pass laws and enforce them. some people will move to places that don’t have such laws. all places should make a better effort to help people and make the help safe. and those who refuse help…yes, it happens….I hope they somehow realize that going inside is better.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 2:01 pm
==SCOTUS simply affirmed the right of the town to enforce a civil punishment for sleeping in public spaces- it mandates nothing. Towns and cities would have to affirmatively pass an ordinance to make it take effect.==
And if a prison labor contractor wants a municipality to enact such a civil ordinance that would create a de facto debtors’ prison for the unhoused that could then be used as a free labor force, well, as long as they promised all the council members nice fat checks after the legislation passed, that’s legal now, too.
Can’t have big gubmint telling is it’s bad to have forever chemicals in the drinking water anymore, though.
Comment by Roadrager Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 2:06 pm
== is the Alt Right Majority in the US Supreme Court at war with decency? ==
A whole bunch of progressive west coast mayors and other elected officials were with the “Alt Right Majority” on this one. Gavin Newsom filed a friend of the court brief supporting the Oregon ordinance.
Comment by Telly Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 2:08 pm
There is nothing about this ruling that limits a government’s ability to provide services or enact affordable housing measures. Providing services and affordable housing measures while also enforcing ordinances that ban people from setting up a camp in the middle of the city, do not need to be, and are not, mutually exclusive priorities. This is a common sense ruling that was supported across party lines, across the country, according to the article. The fact that Newsome was in support of this ruling really undercuts all of the hyperbolic comments against the ruling.
Comment by Parlay Player Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 2:41 pm
Too bad it is not coupled with yes you have a right to remove as long as it is to a nice safe shelter that provided needed treatment
Comment by DuPage Saint Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 2:49 pm
Poverty is a crime…in what’s left of America.
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…and we’ll put ‘em in jail?
Comment by Dotnonymous x Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 2:53 pm
===There is nothing about this ruling that limits===
Did anyone say there was, or is this just another red herring?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 2:54 pm
Publicly owned and operated housing could be one part of a solution. Another part could be forcing folks who have a history violence into treatment. Both would require a near revolution in public policy but the existing situation is unsustainable. We need to make affordable housing widely available and we need to be safe from violence from folks wrestling with mental health and/or addiction. Public parks and spaces should not be encampments for anyone.
Comment by froganon Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 2:59 pm
Back in the day there were official, as well as unofficial, Sundown Towns in Illinois. This was especially true in Southern Illinois where I am most familiar.
It sounds like being homeless has suddenly become the same as being black. So, if you fit into that category, keep moving on.
Comment by illini Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 3:01 pm
Those suffering from the disease of Addiction/Lack of Shelter experience life threatening exposure to the elements, frostbite, and hunger pangs.
They cry real tears, too…human tears.
Blaming the victim only exacerbates the suffering.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 3:08 pm
Anyone saying “make housing affordable” is missing the point. Homelessness is the result of a chronic and underfunded behavioral health system. We can provide free housing to people all day long, but if their mental health needs are not met, they’ll still remain homeless. People aren’t homeless because of financial barriers, they’re homeless because they struggle with maintaining stability.
Start funding outreach services for homeless people, since that isn’t a Medicaid-covered service. Set up strong social supports. Pay caseworkers a living wage.
Comment by Anon Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 3:15 pm
This ruling shouldn’t change anything in Illinois. The Seventh Circuit never adopted the holding of Martin v. Boise, which has only applied in the Ninth Circuit. The result of the Supreme Court’s ruling is status quo for everybody outside of the West Coast.
Comment by Duck Duck Goose Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 3:32 pm
=Start funding outreach services for homeless people, since that isn’t a Medicaid-covered service. Set up strong social supports. Pay caseworkers a living wage.
Increase charitable giving to groups focused on supporting shelter and basic emergency aid. Use Charity Navigator to find highly rated groups.There are plenty in IL
Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 4:00 pm
@Anon
=As many as 40%-60% of people experiencing homelessness have a job, but housing is unaffordable because wages have not kept up with rising rents. There is no county or state where a full-time minimum-wage worker can afford a modest apartment. At minimum wage, people have to work 86 hours a week to afford a one-bedroom. =
https://www.usich.gov/guidance-reports-data/data-trends#:~:text=As%20many%20as%2040%25%2D,to%20afford%20a%20one%2Dbedroom.
But sure.
Homelessness is just a behavioral health issue.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 4:34 pm
“People aren’t homeless because of financial barriers.”
What? The fact that the Illinois Emergency Homeowner Assistance Fund ran out of money suggests otherwise.
Comment by BobIsMyUncle Friday, Jun 28, 24 @ 4:35 pm