The Supreme Court’s conservative majority expressed significant doubt on Monday regarding lower court decisions that found an Oregon city’s ordinance, which prohibits sleeping in public, to be a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Municipalities grappling with significant homeless populations, notably those in California and the eight other states under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, are closely monitoring the result of the lawsuit concerning the ban implemented in Grants Pass, a city in southern Oregon. The court, which previously blocked the ordinance in Oregon and has prevented the dismantling of homeless encampments in various cities, has sparked interest and concern among local authorities.
Related posts
During the extensive argument session, all six justices appointed by Republicans expressed their concerns regarding the federal courts’ role in overseeing challenging decisions regarding the accommodation of homeless individuals. They deliberated on issues like determining suitable locations for homeless people to stay, establishing sufficient shelter bed capacities, and addressing situations where people refuse shelter due to restrictions related to pets, drug or alcohol use, or mental health issues.
“Municipalities often face a juggling act when it comes to setting priorities. Take, for example, the dilemma of dealing with lead pipes in the water. Should they allocate resources towards building a homeless shelter or focus on addressing the lead pipes issue? And what if there are concerns about insufficient fire protection? These are the kind of policy judgments that municipalities grapple with on a regular basis,” Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out. He then raised an important question, “Why do we assume that these nine individuals are the most qualified to make such decisions and weigh in on these matters?”
The liberals on the court raised concerns about the ordinance’s emphasis on sleeping, arguing that it essentially created a criminalization of homelessness.
“Sleeping is a universal and fundamental human function,” expressed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “What we observe in practice is a distinction between those who can afford to sleep privately, without any repercussions, and those who are left with no choice but to sleep in public, which makes them vulnerable to being targeted by this law.”
Justice Elena Kagan emphasized the importance of sleep, comparing it to the act of breathing. In a conversation with attorney Theane Evangelis, Kagan expressed her view that just as it would be unreasonable to criminalize breathing in public, it would also be inappropriate to criminalize sleeping.
Some conservative members of the court pointed out that this line of argument appears to imply that cities and towns have a duty to accommodate every bodily need of individuals.
Justice Neil Gorsuch inquired about the scenario where there are no public bathroom facilities, posing the question of whether individuals have the right to defecate and urinate under the Eighth Amendment.
Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, speaking on behalf of the Biden Administration, is clear that they acknowledge the importance of enforcing laws against public urination and defecation due to significant public health concerns.
The debates on Monday revolved around the significance and interpretation of the 1962 Supreme Court case, Robinson v. California. In this case, the Court ruled that a state law criminalizing drug addiction alone was a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Gorsuch appeared receptive to the possibility of overturning that ruling, or perhaps reorienting it to emphasize the due process rights of individuals, instead of solely focusing on the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments.
Gorsuch pointed out to Kelsi Corkran, the lawyer representing the homeless plaintiffs, that the focus of the argument should not be on attacking the punishments.
According to Corkran, the Eighth Amendment serves the purpose of prohibiting punishments that are administered without any justification or for reasons that are not permissible.
According to Corkan, punishing homeless individuals who do not have access to shelter serves no penological purposes, as the city has not identified any.
The rulings by the 9th Circuit regarding homelessness have sparked criticism from various factions, including conservatives and even Democratic mayors and public officials who govern progressive cities.
California Governor, Gavin Newsom, has taken a unique approach by submitting a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court. In this brief, he encourages the court to find a balanced solution that avoids the federal courts from effectively taking control of how localities address homelessness.
Governor Newsom emphasized the importance of maintaining flexibility and common sense in a recent response to POLITICO. He expressed the need for a more lenient interpretation, highlighting the reasons behind submitting an amicus brief and his intention to closely follow the oral arguments on Monday.
Kneedler argued on Monday that while some ordinances aimed at the homeless may be unconstitutional, the courts should not have issued such a broad injunction. Instead, claims on behalf of specific individuals should have been taken into consideration.
The attorney from the Biden administration faced challenges in responding to the justices’ inquiries on the potential limitations affecting the homeless community. These restrictions included bans on fires or tents, and the attorney struggled to articulate why such measures should be considered valid when individuals have nowhere else to turn.
Kagan, along with the conservatives, expressed the view that the principle could necessitate the modification or suspension of various rules in cases where a city or town does not have sufficient shelter available.
“There do appear to be some challenges when it comes to setting boundaries,” she observed. “Imagine a freezing night where someone desperately needs to start a fire for warmth. Or picture a rainy day where someone wants to put up a tarp for shelter. The city designates specific areas for sleeping, but unfortunately, those areas are plagued with high crime rates. The list goes on and on. These aren’t intended to be tricky questions, but rather real-life scenarios.”
Evangelis criticized the lower courts’ approach for their handling of such issues, highlighting their inherent flaws. She vehemently disagreed with the Biden administration’s attempt to find a middle ground by suggesting a case-by-case evaluation of shelter availability for individuals.
Evangelis expressed his concern, stating that such a move would result in chaos and be nothing short of a disaster. He emphasized that the challenges of drawing lines and making decisions would be never-ending.
Jeremy B. White made a contribution to this report.
