Supreme Court torn over the homeless: Kavanaugh says they shouldn't be ... trends now
The Supreme Court has been divided over a challenge to the constitutionality of ordinances that fines people who are homeless from using blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for protection from the elements while sleeping within city limits.
A town in southwest Oregon made the case Monday, arguing the ordinances merely bar camping on public property by everyone, while challengers contended the laws effectively make it a crime to be homeless.
The city of 39,000 known as Grants Pass recently started fining people $295 for sleeping outdoors to combat homeless encampments springing up in the city's public parks, and the rising housing costs that came as a result.
The court is expected to decide the case by the end of June. Most appeared inclined to uphold the series of local ordinances.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh cited cities' autonomy, as he and others pointed out how the state has some of the highest rates of homelessness and drug addiction in the US. Some have referenced the state of cities like San Francisco, where no such systems are in place.
A Grants Pass, Ore., police officer issues a citation to a homeless woman camped in a city park on Monday. The town has appealed a district court ruling that barred officials from fining locals for sleeping outside
Most of the court appeared to be in favor of upholding the ban, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who cited cities' autonomy, among other things
'The law here, how does it help if there's not enough beds for the number of homeless people in the jurisdiction?' Kavanaugh, 59, asked on Capitol Hill Monday, questioning how the employ such a law since it has less shelter beds than homeless.
'When you get out of jail, what's going to happen then?' he pressed further, citing how similar laws have failed. 'You still don't have a bed available so how does this help?'
He added: 'If...[they] end up in jail for 30 days, then get out, [they're] not going to be better off than you were before in finding a bed... if there aren't beds available.'
That argument held sway in a separate case, Martin v. Boise, in 2018, when a panel of judges from federal court officials in Idaho ruled the city Boise violated the constitutional rights of homeless people by imposing criminal penalties for sleeping and camping outdoors because the city did not have enough beds.
Raising concerns dissidents could again use such a defense, the conservative also pointed out that imposing criminal penalties on a homeless person for sleeping in a public space does not necessarily ensure their circumstances will be improved.
He also warned that solving homelessness is a complicated issue, asking aloud at one point, 'I think one of the questions is, who takes care of it on the ground' he asked at one point.
He also warned about federal courts 'micromanaging' policy - emphasizing the far-flung, isolated nature of the case.
'The law here, how does it help if there's not enough beds for the number of homeless people in the jurisdiction?' Kavanaugh asked Monday, questioning how the employ such a law since it has less shelter beds than homeless. Pictured, a homeless person in Grants Pass last month
Other conservatives asked how far Eighth Amendment legal protections should go, as Grants Pass appeals a district decision that barred officials from enforcing the fines. A Grants Pass officer is seen walking to check on a homeless person last month. A school sits in the background
A used needle is seen on the ground on Friday, March 22, not far from the elementary school. Supporters of the fine have cited how the state or Oregon - a notorious Democrat stronghold - has some of the highest rates of homelessness and drug addiction in the US
Volunteers helped dismantle tents to move an 80-year-old man and a woman blind in one eye, who risked being fined for staying too long, at Fruitdale Park - a hive for homeless activity - in March
A volunteer provides food, medical care and other basic goods to the hundreds of homeless people living in the town parks, as the amount of homeless in the town of 39,000 have caused houising prices to skyrocket
Other conservatives asked how far Eighth Amendment legal protections should go, as Grants Pass appeals a district court decision that barred officials from enforcing its public camping ordinances at night and during the day without 24 hours' notice.
'How about if there are no public bathroom facilities, do people have an Eighth Amendment right to defecate and urinate outdoors?' asked Justice Neil Gorsuch, to which Justice Department attorney Edwin Kneedler replied that other laws shoud cover such a situation.
He said people shouldn't be punished just for sleeping outside, but also disclaimed the ruling striking down the Grants Pass law is unconstitutional - since the state didn't do enough to determine whether those sleeping on the streets and park of Grants Pass were 'involuntarily homeless.'
Gorsuch and other justices also pondered whether other aspects of state or federal law could address the issue, without setting a new standard of sweeping legal precedent in process.
The case began in the rural town last year, when it began fining people for sleeping outside as the cost of housing escalated and tents sprung up in the city's public parks last year - often near local schools.
In October, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals declared anti-camping ordinances in San Francisco violated the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
The circuit court ruling also restricted interventions in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Washington, and lastly, Oregon, while a separate ruling from the court halted bans on homeless people 'using a blanket, pillow, or cardboard box for protection from the elements'.
Activists gathered outside Supreme Court as the justices debated, mulling a challenge to rulings that found punishing people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to
