The Supreme Court has agreed to review the legality of barring homeless individuals from camping on public property. This decision will address whether such ordinances constitute “cruel and unusual punishment,” infringing on the constitutional rights of the homeless.
The case originates from Grants Pass, Oregon, where local ordinances prohibited sleeping or camping on public property, including sidewalks, parks, and streets. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a landmark decision in 2022, ruled that these ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment. The court argued that enforcing anti-camping laws against homeless individuals, particularly when no alternative shelter is available, is unconstitutional. This ruling, which applies to the nine states under jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, including California, has ignited a contentious debate among city officials and advocates for the homeless.
Critics of the 9th Circuit’s ruling, including several city officials from Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Phoenix, argue that it hampers their ability to manage public spaces and address the challenges posed by encampments. They assert that the ruling has effectively paralyzed local communities in their efforts to deal with the homelessness crisis.
On the other hand, advocates for the homeless contend that the decision merely prevents cities from punishing individuals for their status of being homeless, especially when they lack access to adequate shelter.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case reflects the growing urgency of the homelessness crisis in the U.S. Homelessness has been trending across a concerning trajectory, with the Department of Housing and Urban Development reporting a 12% increase in 2022, amounting to over 653,000 individuals. This rise is attributed to various factors, including a lack of affordable housing, the expiration of Covid-era aid programs, and the termination of a federal moratorium on evictions.
The Supreme Court’s review will also revisit the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment in the context of homelessness. Historically, this amendment has been applied to limit the government’s treatment of convicted criminals. However, advocates for the homeless draw parallels with the 1962 Robinson vs. California ruling, where the Supreme Court struck down a law criminalizing narcotics addiction, framing it as an “illness” rather than a punishable offense. They argue that punishing homeless individuals for sleeping on the streets when no shelter is available is akin to punishing them for their status.
The case raises critical questions about the responsibilities of municipalities in addressing homelessness, the rights of homeless individuals, and the broader societal implications of criminalizing homelessness. The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by the end of June, will have far-reaching consequences, potentially reshaping how cities across the country address the growing challenge of homelessness.
