Could the US Supreme Court help solve the homelessness crisis on the West Coast? That's the hope of the region's major cities, from Los Angeles to Seattle, via Portland, Denver, Phoenix, and San Francisco, which have been overwhelmed in recent years by an influx of people camping out on their streets.
These municipalities, all Democratic, are usually critical of the conservative-majority Supreme Court's decisions. This time, they're counting on the justices to give them back the authority to ban sleeping in public spaces, which was stripped from them by a previous court ruling. On Monday, April 22, the Supreme Court considered their petition; meanwhile, outside, National Homelessness Law Center activists sat on the asphalt with signs reading "Housing, not handcuffs!"
The dispute regards the legality of a series of "anti-camping" rulings passed in 2013 by Grants Pass, Oregon, population 40,000. The municipality wanted to prohibit tents or sleeping bags in public places, with fines of up to $300 (€281), and arrests if the fines are not paid. In 2018, three people punished through this measure filed a complaint, citing the lack of places in the city's only shelter, the Gospel Rescue Mission, a 138-place religious establishment where one of the admission requirements is to attend church services.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction covers nine Western states, ruled in their favor. It ruled that the bans and fines imposed on people without access to a shelter were contrary to the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment. The same court had previously invoked the amendment, in 2006, to protect homeless people on Los Angeles' Skid Row, and then, in 2018, to overturn anti-camping ordinances issued by Boise, Idaho.
In 2019, the Supreme Court refused to take up Idaho's case. This year, as residents and business owners in Western cities grow increasingly fed up with the number of homeless people in their neighborhoods, it has agreed to consider Grants Pass' appeal against the Court of Appeals. According to experts, the majority of judges seemed to side with the cities' argument.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and the conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked why their institution was being deemed more suitable for judging decisions affecting local populations than the municipalities themselves. The three liberal justices, on the other hand, criticized Grants Pass' attempt to criminalize certain basic human needs. "Sleeping is a biological necessity," said Judge Elena Kagan. "For a homeless person who has no place to go, sleeping in public is kind of like breathing in public."
You have 42.06% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.