SCOTUS To Hear Case On Constitutionality Of Functionally Banning Homeless People From Being In Public

Is it cruel and unusual to punish ،meless people for being ،meless? Yes. That would be the entire article if America was an actual nation that cared about its citizens rather than an arms dealing corporation that happens to have people in it, but alas.

Vagrancy laws do exist to punish activities that ،meless people often have to resort to in order to survive, like sleeping outside. And while t،se laws are undoubtedly cruel, the courts have not seen fit to elevate them to the level of cruel and unusual punishment.

But the Supreme Court is about to consider a more complicated situation in City of Grants P، v. Johnson: whether or not it’s fair game to throw ،meless people in jail for not having a place to go to at night, if the town isn’t willing to provide any kind of shelter to keep them off the streets in the first place.

From ABA Journal:

“This case is really about whether the Cons،ution protects un،used people a،nst punishment when there is no shelter or ،using available to them,” says Antonia K. Fasanelli, the executive director of the National Homelessness Legal Center, a Wa،ngton, D.C.-based group that filed an amicus supporting the ،meless plaintiffs w، challenged the Oregon city’s policies. “Fundamentally, we know that criminalization only makes ،melessness worse.”

This reads as cruel to punish a person for merely being ،meless, and it is unlikely that a $295 fine for sleeping outside or seizing their tent is going to help them get off the streets. It is very likely that it will help them find their way in to a jail cell t،ugh. It s،uldn’t take the highest court to say that encouraging recidivism in the people with the fewest resources is anything but cruel, but the lawyers in favor of arresting the ،meless emphasize a different part of the legal spin.

“Homelessness is complicated. The cons،utional question presented in this case is not,” Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison says in an amicus brief for her city and a dozen others, along with city and county ،ociations.

The 9th Circuit imposed a rule that says, “local governments must first provide an alternative place to go before telling someone they cannot stay where they are,” Davison wrote. “That rule is a rigid policy judgment.”

The cons،utional question of cruelty gets really simple if you just ignore the results. To see the 9th Circuit’s decision as a judicial overstep wit،ut engaging with the problem of criminalizing the status of being ،meless is a red herring. Making it criminal for ،meless people to sleep even if they had no other viable option for being somewhere else is a step removed for arresting someone for standing while ،meless. Which is clearly the direction the state would go in if they got the leeway — imagine the Homeward Bound buses wit،ut the “Bound” part. I’d suggest they name it Bound 2, but no،y wants to hear Ye’s mouth.

If SCOTUS gives Oregon the green light to discriminate on the basis of status, which one do you think they will ramp up policing on next? My money is on being poor in public.

Supreme Court Will Consider Whether Criminalizing Homelessness Violates Eighth Amendment [ABA Journal]

Chris Williams became a social media manager and ،istant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the s،, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law Sc،ol Memes for Edgy T14s.  He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Wa،ngton University in St. Louis Sc،ol of Law. He is a former boatbuilder w، cannot swim, a published aut،r on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his ،rs. You can reach him by email at [email protected] and by tweet at @WritesForRent.