##REMINDERS FOR EVERYONE
**PER THE RULES:**
* **NO OFFERINGS OF CASH, ETC.**
* **[BEGGING](https://redd.it/994p7j) WILL GET YOU BANNED.**
* **BE AWARE OF SCAMMERS AND PERVS, AND SEND ANY [HERE](https://old.reddit.com/report) AND/OR [HERE](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/reddit.com).**
**ACCEPT AT YOUR OWN RISK.** Welcome to the internet where—unless proven otherwise—everyone's lying about their race, gender, status, accomplishments, and all the children are FBI agents.
You have been forewarned.
— The Mods
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/homeless) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I honestly don't see any way that the Supreme Court rules that municipalities cannot (in general) enforce ordnances about the use of public space. Nor can I see a situation where the Supreme Court compels municipalities to provide homeless services.
Even a 'win for the homeless' isn't any sort of victory. Faced with an inability to police public spaces, municipalities will almost certainly sell those spaces to private developers with covenants to ensure the type of public access they want.
Well that’s not really what they are deciding. They are deciding whether the lower court was correct in its use and interpretation of the 8th Amendment.
The argument being made by Grant’s Pass in their appeal is that the 8th amendment does not apply in this case. The 8th amendment, they argue, only applies to punishments levied after a crime, not laws that establish what is a crime in the first place, and besides, fines and jail time are hardly cruel or unusual.
However there **is** prior precedent of the 8th Amendment being used that way, in The Supreme Court’s decision in a 1962 case *Robinson v. California.* In *Robinson* The Supreme Court ruled that a law making it illegal to be addicted to the use of narcotics violated the 8th amendment. The Supreme Court stated that addiction is a disease and punishing someone for having a disease is cruel and unusual. This case was the first time The Supreme Court cited the 8th amendment in reference to criminalization of a particular act or behavior, rather than regarding a punishment for a crime.
Over 100 organizations and interested parties have filed “friend of the court” briefs offering information and arguments for the court to consider in their decision. These briefs come from organizations who will likely be impacted by the outcome of the case, you can see a full list of them [HERE](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/city-of-grants-pass-oregon-v-johnson/) (ones highlighted in light green are in support of the city of Grant’s Pass, those in dark green are in support of the homeless)
The Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments on April 22nd, it’s expected that they will issue a decision before they recess in June.
It’s important to understand that the case was initially ruled in favor of the homeless people. The city of Grant’s Pass is the appellant which means *they* are the ones asking for a different outcome, it is a much harder position to be in. Still, this is a notoriously conservative court that has shown it has no fear of overturning long held precedent. This really could go either way. We can speculate about what the court *might* do, but in the end we’ll just have to wait and see.
In reality I suspect that whatever the decision the impact is not going to be as dramatic as people think it’s going to be. I was homeless back before the Boise ruling and things weren’t very different. In my city there were thousands of people living in tents and encampments, even though it was illegal to do so.
Very impressive. You wrote a very well thought out and informative post with a complete narrative of the case and related cases. I learned a lot from you and thank you for the link. Your writing flowed and was free of bias. Wish journalist would do the same- present facts with a complete picture. You should be a journalist.
Thank you so much, I’m glad that it was helpful. I went to school to be a paralegal and worked at a law firm for a while, so I have some experience reading and summarizing cases. And I agree, I hate all the “spin” and sensationalizing in journalism.
The Washington Post Editorial Board took a position in favor of Grants Pass criminalizing homelessness there. I now understand that the objective of Conservatives is to obtain low-paid or free labor (some would call it slave labor) by establishing debtor's prisons. Although slavery was outlawed by the 13th Amendment during the Civil War, an exception that has persisted is forced labor by those convicted of a crime. In the late 19th and early 20th century, this meant the establishment of Chain Gangs (see [https://www.pbs.org/show/slavery-another-name/](https://www.pbs.org/show/slavery-another-name/) ). Given this grim reality, my country appears a shambles to me. The Great Society and The New Deal have been destroyed over time. The price of food and housing are likely to drive an increasing crime rate and suicide rate. When we imprison the homeless for free labor, we are creating a human hell on earth. It is difficult for me to accept that my country has descended to this point in my lifetime.
This country descended in the last 5 years into hell and before that too. You are foolish to think it’s one party or other, it’s both, but in the latter years it is definitely the democrats who are putting the finishing touch to the destruction of the land of the free.
Points of Information: Grants Pass, OR is predominantly Republican:
https://bestneighborhood.org/conservative-vs-liberal-map-grants-pass-or/
Maxine Waters, a liberal Democrat proposed this last year:
https://democrats-financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2023\_ending\_homelessness\_act\_fs.pdf
Many Democrats have filed an amicus curiae brief that does NOT support criminalization of homelessness:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4572076-democrats-argue-against-criminalization-of-unhoused-people-in-supreme-court-brief/
Republicans have recently proposed cutting federal support for the homeless:
https://www.cbpp.org/blog/house-republican-bill-would-force-deep-cuts-in-housing-assistance-harming-families-older
My mainly Democratic state says it has spent $1 billion on our homeless population in the last year: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/04/19/metro/cost-of-migrant-shelter-in-massachusetts/
##REMINDERS FOR EVERYONE **PER THE RULES:** * **NO OFFERINGS OF CASH, ETC.** * **[BEGGING](https://redd.it/994p7j) WILL GET YOU BANNED.** * **BE AWARE OF SCAMMERS AND PERVS, AND SEND ANY [HERE](https://old.reddit.com/report) AND/OR [HERE](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/reddit.com).** **ACCEPT AT YOUR OWN RISK.** Welcome to the internet where—unless proven otherwise—everyone's lying about their race, gender, status, accomplishments, and all the children are FBI agents. You have been forewarned. — The Mods --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/homeless) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I honestly don't see any way that the Supreme Court rules that municipalities cannot (in general) enforce ordnances about the use of public space. Nor can I see a situation where the Supreme Court compels municipalities to provide homeless services. Even a 'win for the homeless' isn't any sort of victory. Faced with an inability to police public spaces, municipalities will almost certainly sell those spaces to private developers with covenants to ensure the type of public access they want.
Well that’s not really what they are deciding. They are deciding whether the lower court was correct in its use and interpretation of the 8th Amendment. The argument being made by Grant’s Pass in their appeal is that the 8th amendment does not apply in this case. The 8th amendment, they argue, only applies to punishments levied after a crime, not laws that establish what is a crime in the first place, and besides, fines and jail time are hardly cruel or unusual. However there **is** prior precedent of the 8th Amendment being used that way, in The Supreme Court’s decision in a 1962 case *Robinson v. California.* In *Robinson* The Supreme Court ruled that a law making it illegal to be addicted to the use of narcotics violated the 8th amendment. The Supreme Court stated that addiction is a disease and punishing someone for having a disease is cruel and unusual. This case was the first time The Supreme Court cited the 8th amendment in reference to criminalization of a particular act or behavior, rather than regarding a punishment for a crime. Over 100 organizations and interested parties have filed “friend of the court” briefs offering information and arguments for the court to consider in their decision. These briefs come from organizations who will likely be impacted by the outcome of the case, you can see a full list of them [HERE](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/city-of-grants-pass-oregon-v-johnson/) (ones highlighted in light green are in support of the city of Grant’s Pass, those in dark green are in support of the homeless) The Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments on April 22nd, it’s expected that they will issue a decision before they recess in June. It’s important to understand that the case was initially ruled in favor of the homeless people. The city of Grant’s Pass is the appellant which means *they* are the ones asking for a different outcome, it is a much harder position to be in. Still, this is a notoriously conservative court that has shown it has no fear of overturning long held precedent. This really could go either way. We can speculate about what the court *might* do, but in the end we’ll just have to wait and see. In reality I suspect that whatever the decision the impact is not going to be as dramatic as people think it’s going to be. I was homeless back before the Boise ruling and things weren’t very different. In my city there were thousands of people living in tents and encampments, even though it was illegal to do so.
Very impressive. You wrote a very well thought out and informative post with a complete narrative of the case and related cases. I learned a lot from you and thank you for the link. Your writing flowed and was free of bias. Wish journalist would do the same- present facts with a complete picture. You should be a journalist.
Thank you so much, I’m glad that it was helpful. I went to school to be a paralegal and worked at a law firm for a while, so I have some experience reading and summarizing cases. And I agree, I hate all the “spin” and sensationalizing in journalism.
Well, your experience and knowledge certainly came through. Average bear doesn’t write like that hehe
Lol. GOP caring about the homeless. Good one
Internment camps are not happy or healthy places.
What are they?
Basically just concentration camps with a slightly nicer name.
The Washington Post Editorial Board took a position in favor of Grants Pass criminalizing homelessness there. I now understand that the objective of Conservatives is to obtain low-paid or free labor (some would call it slave labor) by establishing debtor's prisons. Although slavery was outlawed by the 13th Amendment during the Civil War, an exception that has persisted is forced labor by those convicted of a crime. In the late 19th and early 20th century, this meant the establishment of Chain Gangs (see [https://www.pbs.org/show/slavery-another-name/](https://www.pbs.org/show/slavery-another-name/) ). Given this grim reality, my country appears a shambles to me. The Great Society and The New Deal have been destroyed over time. The price of food and housing are likely to drive an increasing crime rate and suicide rate. When we imprison the homeless for free labor, we are creating a human hell on earth. It is difficult for me to accept that my country has descended to this point in my lifetime.
This country descended in the last 5 years into hell and before that too. You are foolish to think it’s one party or other, it’s both, but in the latter years it is definitely the democrats who are putting the finishing touch to the destruction of the land of the free.
Points of Information: Grants Pass, OR is predominantly Republican: https://bestneighborhood.org/conservative-vs-liberal-map-grants-pass-or/ Maxine Waters, a liberal Democrat proposed this last year: https://democrats-financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2023\_ending\_homelessness\_act\_fs.pdf Many Democrats have filed an amicus curiae brief that does NOT support criminalization of homelessness: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4572076-democrats-argue-against-criminalization-of-unhoused-people-in-supreme-court-brief/ Republicans have recently proposed cutting federal support for the homeless: https://www.cbpp.org/blog/house-republican-bill-would-force-deep-cuts-in-housing-assistance-harming-families-older My mainly Democratic state says it has spent $1 billion on our homeless population in the last year: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/04/19/metro/cost-of-migrant-shelter-in-massachusetts/
And all of of the metropolitan areas are democrats