Comprehensive British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Associated Press and other media reported on June 29 that on June 28, local time, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the judgment of an appellate court in San Francisco with a 6:3 verdict, allowing local governments to implement a ban on homeless people sleeping outdoors. This case is the most important decision on homelessness made by the U.S. Supreme Court since the 80s of the 20th century, and it is also against the backdrop of a record number of people without permanent residence in the United States.
Homeless tents in Los Angeles (Xinhua)
The case comes from the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, where an ordinance has been introduced that would impose a $295 fine on street sleepers after public parks can no longer accommodate new tents. The homeless residents filed a lawsuit after three local homeless people were repeatedly penalized for not being able to pay their fines. The homeless residents said the penalties violated the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because the city did not have any public shelters.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which governs nine western states, subsequently ruled that such a ban violated the Eighth Amendment in areas where shelter beds were insufficient. The court has been ruling this way since 2018, but the town government of Grants Pass has since taken the matter to the Supreme Court.
After the SPC verdict was issued, several cities issued statements welcoming the ruling. San Francisco said it would help the city "manage our public spaces more effectively," while Grants Pass Mayor Sarah Bristol told The Associated Press that the city would not immediately begin enforcing local ordinances that would fine street sleepers, and that the city council would need to review the decision and determine next steps.
"This lawsuit is about whether the city has the right to enforce camping restrictions in public spaces, and I'm thrilled that Grants Pass has been able to repurpose our city park for recreation," Bristol said. "Homelessness is a complex issue, and our community is constantly working to find solutions."
Attorneys who represented Grants Pass on the Supreme Court applauded the ruling and said the Ninth Circuit's ruling "tied the hands of local governments." "I hope that years from now, when we look back on today's watershed ruling, we can see it as a turning point in the homelessness crisis in the United States," the lawyer said. ”
Lawyers representing the homeless expressed dissatisfaction with the verdict. "We are disappointed that the Supreme Court majority of justices ruled that our Constitution allows cities to punish homeless residents simply because they have nowhere else to go and have to sleep outdoors wrapped in blankets to ward off the cold," said Ed Johnson, director of litigation at the Oregon Law Center. ”
In response to the ruling, the National Coalition to End Homelessness said it "sets a dangerous precedent that will cause unnecessary harm to homeless people and allow local officials who are inclined to make senseless and costly arrests and incarceration to move freely, rather than providing a real solution."
Elizabeth Fink, founder of DignityMoves, a nonprofit dedicated to ending homelessness, said the first problem with putting homeless people in jail is that the administrative costs it comes with are very expensive, and when homeless people are released from prison, they remain homeless and have less likely to find jobs that require a clean criminal record.
At the moment, there is a lot of debate around the United States about how to deal with homelessness. Democratic and Republican officials in Western states alike argue that the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the camping ban makes it difficult for them to manage campgrounds.
On the other hand, groups opposed to the ban argue that allowing cities to punish those who need a place to sleep would treat the homeless as criminals and would end up worsening the crisis as the cost of housing increases.
This heated debate has also spread to the U.S. Supreme Court, where conservative majorities disagree.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch (top) and Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor (U.S. Supreme Court)
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said sleep is a physiological need and people may be forced to sleep outdoors if they can't find housing or haven't had space in a shelter. "If every city, every village, every town lacks compassion and passes the same law, where are we going to put them?" Sotomayor said. Where should they sleep? Should they kill themselves instead of sleeping? ”
Conservatives, on the other hand, have a different understanding of the scope of the Eighth Amendment, with conservative Justice Neil Gorso saying, "Do people have the right to defecate outdoors without public bathroom facilities?" ”
In the verdict, Neil Gorsuch, on behalf of the conservative majority, wrote that the city's rules on camping would not cause "terror, pain or shame" because the law does not criminalize the "identity" of homeless people, and the ban focuses more on the actions of individuals than just who they are. Therefore it is not for the homeless. "It makes no difference that the defendant in the charge can be a homeless person, or a backpacker on vacation in town, or a student who left the dorm to camp on the lawn of the municipal building in protest," Gorso said. ”
Homelessness in the United States is on the rise, in part due to a chronic lack of affordable housing. According to U.S. government data, more than 650,000 people were homeless in the U.S. in 2023, nearly half of whom slept on the streets, the highest number since similar surveys began in 2007.
The issue has been central to recent election cycles in cities on the West Coast of the United States, where the local government has spent record amounts of money on shelters and affordable housing, while homelessness continues to grow.
Source: Observer.com