6 GROUNDCOVER NEWS HOMELESSNESS Cartoon by Izzy Hedin-Urrutia Is being homeless a criminal act? SCOTUS to decide MAY 3, 2024 come in and say as to that, [you can], but as to that, you can't do that?” Kagan continued, “For a person who has no place to go, sleeping in public is kind of like breathing in public. Your statute says that a person cannot take himself and himself only and take a blanket and sleep some place without it being a crime. It just seems like you're criminalizing a status." "If every city, every village, every town lacks compassion and passes a law identical to this? Where are they supposed to sleep?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said it seems, "... both cruel and unusual to punish people for acts that constitute basic human needs. We're talking about sleeping. That is universal, that is a basic function." One of the striking things about the In Grants Pass, Ore., there is a conflict between the City Council and locals experiencing homelessness. The case Johnson v. Grants Pass began in 2018 with lower level courts and has escalated to become a U.S. Supreme Court case. The main argument is whether or not punishing people with fines and incarceration for sleeping outside violates the eighth amendment, which prohibits cruel or unusual punishment. The plaintiffs Gloria Johnson and John Logan are being represented by the Oregon Law Center. Both Johnson and Logan are residents of Grants Pass who lost their housing. They have been sleeping in their vehicles since and have been given many citations for sleeping in public. They are involuntarily homeless as are many of the 600 people who are currently experiencing homelessness in Grants Pass. The city has expensive housing and has no homeless shelter, so anyone who loses their housing may end up sleeping on the street but Grants Pass has made that illegal. There is absolutely no place for them to survive. The Grants Pass City Council does not want homeless people to sleep in public parks. The ordinance makes outdoor camping a criminal offense punishable by a $1,250 fine and up to 30 days in jail. The City Council president, Lily Morgan, said at a council meeting, “The point is to make it uncomfortable enough for them [the homeless] in our city so they will want to move on down the road.” On April 22, SCOTUS heard oral arguments for Grants Pass v. Johnson. “Grants Pass says civil and criminal punishments are necessary for enforcing laws banning homeless individuals from public spaces. Lawyers representing a class of homeless residents argue to address root causes of homelessness and only exacerbates the crisis.” Another advocate for the homeless JIM CLARK Groundcover vendor No. 139 in Grants Pass is The National Homelessness Law Center, a team of human rights attorneys and advocates fighting to solve homelessness by challenging criminalization and protecting the rights of homeless people across the United States. The National Homeless Law Center penalizing people who have nowhere else to go constitutes cruel and unusual punishment — a violation of the Eighth Amendment,” Jeremiah Hayden reported in Portland, Ore. street newspaper “Street Roots.” An April 2023 press release by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition stated, “The court will soon decide whether localities that have failed to address the affordable housing and shelter needs of their community can issue fines or arrest people experiencing homelessness for sleeping outside even when there is no adequate housing or shelter.” An amicus brief is a court document submitted by someone not directly involved in a legal case; it provides information, expertise, or insight relevant to the case. These briefs aim to inform the court about the consequences of a ruling. One entity that submitted an amicus brief in the case was the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, “dedicated to achieving racially and socially equitable public policy that ensures people with the lowest incomes have quality homes that are accessible and affordable in communities of their choice.” The NLIHC brief argued that "criminalization fails recently entered the arena by delivering “over 42 friend of the court briefs in the landmark case. These [amicus] briefs reflect support from more than 1,100 groups and public figures who join us in calling for protection under the U.S. Constitution of the rights of over 260,000 Americans who sleep outside every night,” stated a newsletter from Jesse Rabinowitz, Campaign & Communications Director. During the two hour hearing on Monday, April 22, the justices made these comments: "How do we draw these difficult lines as to whether the Eighth Amendment would prohibit a municipality from punishing other acts like public urination if there are no facilities available or trespassing,” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett. "Many people have mentioned this is a serious policy problem, and it's a policy problem because the solution of course is to build shelter, to provide shelter for those who are otherwise harmless," Justice John Roberts said. "But municipalities have competing priorities. What if there are lead pipes in the water? Which one do you prioritize?” Justice Elena Kagan asked Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, "Where is the line where the city can say our legitimate municipal interests can case is that some of the judges don’t believe they should weigh in on the matter at all. The arguments were already heard by a district court and the 9th circuit court who determined the unconstitutionality of the ordinances. In 2020, the district court in Medford ruled that the city's ordinances regulating homelessness were unconstitutional. Grants Pass appealed that decision to the 9th Circuit Court, based in San Francisco, which upheld it in a three-judge decision. Arguments in favor of keeping the laws and ordinances come from the belief that state and local authorities are closer to the problem so have a better perspective on addressing it. Also, since the impact of homelessness and the solutions for it directly impact the community they are in, the local government should have the final say. Those who support the imposing of fines and penalties argue that these things are commonly used to address criminal activity and are not cruel or unusual. The case also brought a discussion about “where to draw the line.” For instance, is someone who lays out a blanket at night to watch the stars and ends up falling asleep guilty of camping in public? What if someone urinates in public because there are no public toilets? What is the difference between camping for survival and camping for recreation? Should they both be prohibited? As of the time of publication, the decision is waiting to be made. If the Supreme Court upholds the 9th circuit court’s decision, what will be the ramifications for people who are camping for survival? How would that impact Washtenaw County? If they decide to overturn the ruling, allowing municipalities to draft laws targeting the homeless, will Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and the rest of Washtenaw County adopt tougher laws and ordinances against their homeless citizens?
7 Publizr Home