Lower courts had ruled that an Oregon city’s ordinance banning public sleeping violated the Constitution’s provision on cruel and unusual punishment, but Monday, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court sounded quite doubtful about those judgments.
As a result of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to block the Oregon ordinance and prohibit the removal of homeless encampments in multiple cities, municipalities throughout the country, including those in California and the eight other states covered by it, are anxiously awaiting the verdict in the case involving the Grants Pass ban.
Throughout the nearly 2.5 hours of arguments, the six justices appointed by Republicans voiced their apprehension about the federal courts presiding over complex decisions regarding the allocation of shelter beds, the number of beds that should be considered sufficient, and the treatment of individuals who refuse shelter due to restrictions on pets, drug or alcohol use, or mental health issues.
Every municipality has its own set of priorities. What if, for example, the water contains lead pipes? Would you rather fix the lead pipes or construct the shelter for the homeless? What happens if the fire safety measures are inadequate? Do you have a preference? Judgment Chief Justice John Roberts inquired. To evaluate and consider those policy decisions, why do you believe these nine individuals are the most qualified?
The liberal justices on the court cast doubt on the ordinance’s centrality to sleeping, arguing that it effectively criminalized homelessness.
“Sleeping is the topic at hand. That applies everywhere. According to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, that is a fundamental duty. People who can afford to do this essential human requirement privately are not punished for it; this is what is happening in operation. The statute’s intended victims, however, are those who are unable to engage in private sexual activity and hence must do it in public.
“Biologically, we can’t function without sleep. According to Theane Evangelis, an attorney for Grants Pass, Justice Elena Kagan compared it to breathing. I suppose you would also disagree that it’s acceptable to make it a crime to breathe in public, but you could argue that breathing is also conduct.
But other conservative justices on the court pointed out that this line of reasoning seemed to imply that municipalities were obligated to provide for people’s every physical need.
“What if there aren’t any public restrooms?” Asking was Justice Neil Gorsuch. “Is it a constitutionally protected right to urinate and defecate?”
“No one is suggesting — we’re not suggesting that public urination, defecation laws cannot be enforced because there are very substantial public health reasons for that,” stated Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, speaking on behalf of the Biden Administration.
Robinson v. California, a Supreme Court decision from 1962 that held that a state statute that made it illegal to simply be a drug addict violated the Eighth Amendment’s restriction on cruel and unusual punishment, was the subject of many of Monday’s arguments regarding its meaning and relevance.
Gorsuch appeared willing to reverse the ruling or change its emphasis from the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments to the right to due process.
For the homeless plaintiffs’ attorney Kelsi Corkran, “You’re not really attacking the punishments here,” Gorsuch told her.
However, according to Corkran, one of the reasons for the Eighth Amendment is to prevent punishments that are either unjustified or violate moral principles.
To punish those without homes, the city has never found a “penological purpose,” according to Corkan.
Not only have conservatives reacted negatively to the 9th Circuit’s decisions on homelessness, but so have Democratic mayors and other public officials who are in charge of cities that tilt liberal.
In an uncommon move, California Governor Gavin Newsom submitted a friend-of-the-court petition to the Supreme Court, urging them to find a middle ground that prevents federal courts from effectively managing how cities deal with homeless populations.
“We still need the flexibility and the common sense that would be provided under a more lenient interpretation,” Newsom stated last week in answer to a question from HEADLINESFOREVER. As a result, we filed the amicus brief. For that reason, we want to see Monday’s oral arguments.
In an attempt to find a middle ground, Kneedler said on Monday that certain homeless ordinances may be unlawful, but that the courts should have looked into individual allegations rather than issued a blanket injunction.
On Monday, justices questioned the Biden administration attorney about several restrictions that would affect the homeless, including bans on fires and tents, and the rationale for their validity in a situation where people genuinely lacked a place to stay.
In this regard, Kagan agreed with conservatives, arguing that the concept could be interpreted as necessitating the suspension or modification of several regulations in the event that a municipality does not possess sufficient housing.
“It appears that there are problems with drawing lines,” she remarked. Somebody wants to build a fire, and it’s freezing outside. Someone is planning to set up a tarp because it is raining. The city has designated some areas as safe for sleeping, yet those places actually have a lot of crime. Well, I suppose the list might continue forever. I mean, they aren’t gotcha questions or anything.
Evangelis argued that the lower courts had made a mistake in their handling of such matters. She vehemently opposed the Biden administration’s compromise proposal to evaluate each individual’s access to shelter on an individual basis.
“That, too, would cause anarchy. “It would be catastrophic,” Evangelis declared. “There will always be issues with drawing straight lines.”