Supreme Court’s Controversial Homelessness Decision Already Affecting Californians

The most recent controversial ruling from the nine judges overturned a decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that decided being homeless wasn’t illegal. The new ruling could allow local governments to criminalize and even imprison people living without homes for sleeping outside.

That year, the local government of Grants Pass decided that they didn’t want anyone living in their town without housing. But instead of finding housing for the three residents, the government passed a law that made sleeping outside illegal and punishable by law enforcement.

In court, the plaintiffs cited the case of Martin v. Boise (2018), in which the judge prohibited the city in Idaho from banning outdoor sleeping as “the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.”

However, that wasn’t the end of the story. Grants Pass, Oregon, took the case to the Supreme Court, hoping that the county’s highest court would overturn the decision. And finally, a decision has been made.

The Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution only says, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” However, while the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that this clause does apply to fining or punishing those experiencing homelessness, the Supreme Court says it doesn’t.

The justices who voted to overturn also argued that because Grants Pass’s law applied to all people, it was not being enforced against specific individuals as the plaintiffs claimed.

However, there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that this ruling will affect the nation’s homeless more than anyone else. In fact, many are now worried that local governments around the country will implement similar laws.

The Department of Justice argued that the case should be limited so that it upholds the Constitution and allows the homeless protection from cruel and unusual punishment, but also that local governments could implement some outdoor sleeping policies as they saw fit.

That includes completely banning people from sleeping outside and distributing civil fines or even arresting the homeless and incarcerating them. Because there is an incredibly large homeless population in the US, this decision could have drastic consequences.

“The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy,” he wrote, (via NPR).

Stating that sleep is a biological necessity of humanity, the decision leaves homeless people with “an impossible choice—either stay awake or be arrested.”

Many political leaders, including President Biden and California Governor Gavin Newsom, have been working tirelessly to find a solution. However, they have yet to find a realistic solution.

“Where do people experiencing homelessness go if every community decides to punish them for their homelessness?” Yentel asks.

The decisions made by the lower court did allow cities to restrict when and where people could sleep, and to shut down encampments that posed a threat. However, cities first had to offer people adequate shelter before limiting the amount of people sleeping on the streets.

Even if beds are available, not everyone will accept them. Local officials reported their frustrations over unhoused people refusing shelter when it is available as the facilities ban pets or prohibit drugs and alcohol.

Attorneys for the three homeless people in Grants Pass argue that the city’s regulations to discourage sleeping outside are so sweeping that they seemingly make it illegal for someone to sleep or exist without a home.

The city does not have a public shelter to give the three homeless people in the town an alternative option to the streets. Only a Christian mission, which requires people to attend religious service and imposes various restrictions, offers alternative housing.

Johnson also noted that imposing fines and criminal records on people who cannot find work or afford housing makes it harder for them to eventually get into housing, creating a vicious cycle that bucks against the city’s wants.

Many have argued that implementing excessive fines and even incarceration for sleeping outside are absolutely cruel and unusual punishments for those who literally have nowhere else to do. Even Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor staunchly opposed the decision, stating, “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. For some people, sleeping outside is their only option.”

This has created limited solutions for people who cannot afford housing, with one of them being homelessness.

Right now, there is no answer. There are certainly not enough shelters in the United States to house them, and as rental prices continue to rise, it’s unlikely that they will be able to find accommodation. No one knows quite yet what this ruling will lead to, but it’s likely to cause significant problems for Americans without homes.

The gap between wage growth and rent increases is widest in large cities, but towns like Grants Pass still feel its effects.

In a recent post on X, formerly known as Twitter, Newsom urges local governments to urgently and dignifiedly destroy the encampments where thousands of unsheltered Californians live, “with urgency and dignity.”

Newsom’s executive order is exactly what homeless advocates and unhoused people feared would happen after the Supreme Court’s ruling, which takes away any belongings a person may have when authorities take them into custody for their living conditions.