NATIONAL STORY COURTESY OF STREET ROOTS / INSP.NGO SUPREME COURT RULES ARRESTING, CITING PEOPLE FOR NOT HAVING SHELTER IS CONSTITUTIONAL BY JEREMIAH HAYDEN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT issued a decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson on 28 June, reversing the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals injunction barring the southern Oregon city of Grants Pass from enforcing ordinances banning sleeping in public spaces. In a 6-3 decision, conservative justices reversed the lower court’s 2022 ruling that said that punishing homeless residents for sleeping in public spaces when they have no other option violated the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the 9th Circuit for further proceedings, saying that its 2018 Martin v. Boise decision — which served as the backdrop for the Grants Pass case — went too far in applying the Eighth Amendment to homeless residents facing punishment for sitting, lying or sleeping in public. The ruling is expected to significantly impact homelessness policy throughout the US, as many local governments currently prohibit public sleeping under threat of civil or criminal penalties regardless of shelter availability. Conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett formed the majority opinion. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Gorsuch wrote for the majority, saying that the Eighth Amendment does not authorize federal judges to dictate homelessness policy and should be left to the American people. The majority ruling argued that because Grants Pass’ anti-homeless ordinances theoretically apply to everyone, they do not effectively criminalize status but rather conduct. “Yes, people will disagree over which policy responses are best; they may experiment with one set of approaches only to find later another set works better; they may find certain responses more appropriate for some communities than others,” Gorsuch said. “But in our democracy, that is their right.” In her dissenting opinion, Sotomayor said that it is possible for the court to balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of people experiencing homelessness, and constitutional principles. She added that the majority focused solely on local governments while leaving the most vulnerable with the impossible choice of staying awake or being arrested. “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” she said. In amicus briefs filed in advance of oral arguments, elected officials, police departments, and business associations throughout the West Coast joined Grants Pass in saying that two interrelated 9th Circuit decisions — Martin v. Boise and Grants Pass v. Johnson — remove the tools that they need to address the growing homelessness crisis. Advocates for homeless residents say that laws penalizing people who have nowhere else to go violate the Eighth Amendment because they punish people for the status of being homeless. While the city said the laws are applied to everyone, counsel for a class of involuntarily homeless residents argued in court that the ordinances are exclusively enforced against those who have nowhere else to go. Theane Evangelis, legal counsel for the City of Grants Pass, said that the 9th Circuit’s decisions tied the hands of local governments, applauding the Supreme Court’s reversal. 8 DENVER VOICE August 2024
9 Publizr Home