Posted on 06/28/2024 9:54:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In what sounds like one of the weirdest cases in recent memory, the Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 in favor of municipalities in the case of City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson. The case involved whether municipalities could bar homeless people from “camping” in public spaces, addressing the question, “Does the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?”
The short summary from SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe in the site's live chat is that "The court holds that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute 'cruel and unusual punishment' barred by the Eighth Amendment."
The case stemmed from the city of Grants Pass fining homeless people who were living in cardboard boxes or sleeping with blankets and pillows in public areas of the city. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a similar law in Boise, Idaho, violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The case against the city drew on the 1962 case of Robinson v. California, which used Eighth Amendment arguments to ban states and localities from making drug addiction a crime on its own without an addict committing other crimes.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
The issue of “camping bans,” which are common in cities across the nation, divided justices during oral arguments. The liberal justices were more sympathetic to the plight of homeless people, while the conservative justices asked more detailed questions.
Howe wrote:
Justice Clarence Thomas emphasized that the law at issue in Robinson barred both the use of drugs and being addicted to drugs. Do the city’s ordinances, Thomas asked, make it a crime to be homeless?
They do not, [Theane] Evangelis [the attorney representing the city] responded.
But other justices suggested that it was more difficult to draw the line between status and conduct, which under Robinson can be punished. Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, seemed to suggest that because someone who is homeless can instantly become “not homeless,” homelessness is not a status.
And Justice Samuel Alito indicated that although “status is different from conduct, … there are some instances of conduct that are closely tied to status or if homelessness is defined as simply lacking a place to stay in a particular night, they amount to the same thing.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked [Kelsi Brown] Corkran [the attorney representing the homeless individuals] whether it would violate the Eighth Amendment for the city to enforce its laws in other scenarios involving basic human needs like eating and using the bathroom. Could the city fine or arrest people who are homeless for stealing food or urinating or defecating in public?
Unless you own the property, it’s not yours to do as you wish.
Now we will have to fight the commie’s in Oregon.
Grants Pass Oregon is a disgusting mess. I was stuck there after the Almeda fire.
A blow to the Hobo-American community
Caterpillar bulldozer rental agencies, please answer the house phone.
would barring someone from using my kitchen for their hunger needs or peeing or pooping in my side yard for their normal excrement needs constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”? what about refusing to give a “unhoused adult” a ride to their local drug dealer of choice in MY CAR? does that constitute cruel and unusual punishment? WHERE DOES THIS QWAP STOP? it stops when we all tell the progressive leftist liberals NO! and mean it. not until.
It has been a very good day.
Need to buy a lotto ticket.
Create homeless work camps for the homeless. It benefits everyone. If they’re too old or sick to work, put them on welfare. There, problem solved.
In 1962, addiction was quite often impossible to treat.
Now there are effective treatments for opiate addiction.
I love their rebuke of the 9th Circus:
“(e) Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. The question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. A handful of federal judges cannot begin to “match” the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding “how best to handle” a pressing social question like homelessness. Robinson, 370 U. S., at 689 (White, J., dissenting).
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.”
It is indeed a very good day, for the SC and for the USA!
Rachel Corrie will pick up..
Is anything being dished out to J6ers for being on government property ‘cruel and unusual punishment’?
Tell that to the NYS legislature (Demonrat super majority) that have passed “Good Cause” eviction. The tenant now has the say so over whether or not you sell your property.
We know how Democrats treat the Constitution.
GOOD LUCK
I ALREADY HAVE MINE
As for alcohol addiction, Grants Pass might be allowed by Oregon to ‘dry’ up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dry_communities_by_U.S._state
Why this is just rabbit food juice with some ethanol!
Yup, it’s water, kale, parsley, cilantro, lemongrass and 3% ethanol!
I’m getting out of this freaking hellhole!
Need a bus ticket?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.