Is there a Constitutional right to camp on the streets? The Supreme Court will ponder this question on Monday in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.
Like thousands of cities, Grants Pass, Ore., bans camping on public property. Offenses are punishable by a $295 fine and short jail terms for serial violations. Homeless advocates argued in a class action that prohibiting public vagrancy violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. A divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed.
The majority leaned on the High Court’s fuzzy Robinson (1962) decision, which held that the Eighth Amendment forbids criminalizing the “status” of being a drug addict, though governments could still punish drug use. This legal distinction bore little practical difference. But the Ninth Circuit’s extension of this logic is causing enormous real-world harm.
According to the Ninth Circuit judges, Grants Pass unfairly punished the supposedly involuntary status of being homeless, even though many vagrants rejected housing. One woman did so because her Rottweiler wasn’t allowed in a shelter. Others may refuse to abide a shelter’s minimal behavioral rules. Some simply prefer to live on the streets.
Under the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, homelessness is considered “involuntary” as long as the number of vagrants exceed the available beds. When calculating the latter, the judges excluded religiously affiliated shelters as well as warming and sobering centers. Is requiring the homeless to stay sober to get shelter a constitutional violation?
Бъдете първият, отговорил на тази Генерална дискусия .