A group of volunteers investigates homeless people in a park in Grants Pass, Oregon, on March 21.
Jenny Kane/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Jenny Kane/AP
A group of volunteers investigates homeless people in a park in Grants Pass, Oregon, on March 21.
Jenny Kane/AP
In a major homelessness case, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld an Oregon city's crackdown on public sleeping. The decision could have far-reaching implications for cities and states struggling to manage record numbers of people living in tents and cars.
The Supreme Court had declined to hear a similar case in Boise, Idaho, in 2019. But since then, the rate of homelessness has skyrocketed. An annual federal study found that more than 250,000 people live in parks, on the streets, or in their cars. Encampments on the streets have grown larger and expanded to new locations, sparking a fierce backlash from residents and businesses.
This incident symbolizes how widespread the homeless problem is, especially in Grants Pass, Oregon, a small city with a population of less than 40,000 people. Many other cities and states, led by both Democrats and Republicans, asked judges to take up the issue.
City officials say courts are hindering efforts to tackle homelessness
In both Boise and Grants Pass, lower courts held that under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it is cruel and unusual to impose fines and prison sentences for sleeping on public land in the absence of adequate shelter. said. But Grants Pass and many other cities across the West say these rulings tie their hands when it comes to keeping public spaces open and safe for everyone.
There are no public shelters in Grants Pass. However, local laws generally prohibit sleeping with blankets or pillows on public land at any time.
During Monday's arguments, the Supreme Court's more liberal justices suggested this was tantamount to illegally targeting people simply because they are homeless. “We don't arrest babies who are covered in blankets. We don't arrest people who sleep on the beach,” Justice Sotomayor said.
Justice Kagan said sleeping is not a criminal act. “Sleeping is a biological necessity. It's like breathing. … But I don't think it would criminalize breathing in public.”
But the court's conservative justices said it can be difficult to draw the line between a person's actions that can be legally punished and their status, which cannot be changed (not punished). “What if there are no public restrooms?” Justice Gorsuch asked. “Do people have an Eighth Amendment right to defecate and urinate? Is it an act or a status?”
Conservative justices also repeatedly said that homelessness is a complex policy issue and questioned whether courts like theirs should “micromanage” the issue.
“Why do you think these nine people are the best people to judge and weigh policy decisions?” Chief Justice Roberts asked.
Demonstrators gather in front of City Hall in Grants Pass, Oregon, on March 20. A self-described “park watchdog” group opposes public drug use at homeless encampments.
Jenny Kane/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Jenny Kane/AP
Demonstrators gather in front of City Hall in Grants Pass, Oregon, on March 20. A self-described “park watchdog” group opposes public drug use at homeless encampments.
Jenny Kane/AP
No matter what decision is made, this lawsuit will not solve the homeless problem
States and cities across the country are struggling to manage record homelessness rates. Some Western countries have found ways to limit or clear out encampments without running afoul of the Ninth Circuit's ruling. Elsewhere, some states are taking a more drastic approach by banning camping. Florida's governor recently signed a law that requires the complete removal of homeless people from public lands and their relocation to government-run camps.
I wonder if the decision in favor of Grants Pass will lead to more such movements, or the worst-case scenario of a “race of displacement” if communities try to force people out of their jurisdictions. Some people worry that Justice Sotomayor raised that concern during argument.
“If every city, every village, every town lacks compassion, where do we put them?” she said.
Grants Pass and other cities argue that the Ninth Circuit's decision has spurred the growth of homeless encampments. But no matter how the case is decided, it is unlikely to dramatically reduce the huge number of people living outdoors in tents or cars. Many places don't have enough evacuation beds to accommodate everyone. And more importantly, they lack nearly enough permanent, affordable housing. There is a housing shortage of 4,000 units in Grants Pass. Nationally, the deficit is in the millions of dollars.
Advocates say the shortage is pushing rents to levels that many people can't afford, and is a major factor in the rise in homelessness. Even in regions that are investing heavily in building more affordable housing, it will take some time to catch up. This Supreme Court case won't solve any of that, but it could dramatically shape the lives of people forced to live on the streets, in parks, and in back alleys for years to come. .
