US Supreme Court to decide as 20 AGs give input.
A Group of Attorneys General Petition the Supreme Court to Overturn Ruling on Homeless Encampments
A group of 20 attorneys general, representing Republican-controlled states, has taken their case to the Supreme Court in an effort to reverse a lower court’s decision regarding bans on homeless encampments. The case, known as Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, originated in Grants Pass, Oregon, where three homeless individuals challenged the city’s anti-homeless ordinances, arguing that their constitutional rights were violated.
In a significant development, California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has also filed a brief with the Supreme Court, urging them to take up the case. Newsom, along with other cities and Democrats, believes that the lower court rulings have made it challenging to enforce regulations against homeless camps, leading to public safety concerns in major cities.
Related Stories
- 5 Cases to Watch in Supreme Court’s 2023–24 Term – September 26, 2023
- New York Gov. Hochul Criticizes Justice Thomas as Supreme Court Moves Gun Law Challenge Forward – September 27, 2023
The city of Grants Pass recently appealed the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling, which invalidated their anti-camping measure. The court’s decision was based on a previous case, Martin v. City of Boise, which stated that cities cannot prevent people from sleeping on public property if there are no alternative shelter options available.
“Does the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?” lawyers for Grants Pass asked the Supreme Court.
In their brief, the 20 attorneys general argue that allowing homeless encampments is cruel and creates more suffering than alternative solutions. They highlight the health and safety issues faced by both homeless individuals and the general public when camps are not cleared.
Governor Newsom’s office has joined conservative states and groups in filing an appeal with the Supreme Court, marking a rare alignment between the Democratic governor and Republicans. Newsom acknowledges the need to protect homeless individuals but believes that the courts have gone too far in blocking reasonable efforts to address the harms caused by uncontrolled encampments.
The Supreme Court has until early October to decide whether to take up the case, which has significant implications for local governments and their ability to address homelessness effectively.
How do lower court rulings deeming anti-homelessness ordinances as unconstitutional impact the regulation and management of homeless encampments?
M.html”>5 Cases to Watch in Supreme Court’s 2023-24 Term
The issue of homeless encampments has become an increasingly contentious topic across the United States, with various cities struggling to address the problem. Homelessness is a complex issue with multiple underlying causes, such as the lack of affordable housing, mental illness, and substance abuse. Many cities have enacted laws or ordinances aimed at regulating and managing homeless encampments in an attempt to balance the needs of the homeless population with public safety concerns. In the case of Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, the plaintiffs argued that the city’s ban on camping, sleeping, or storing personal belongings in public spaces infringes on their constitutional rights, including the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and protection against cruel and unusual punishment. They claimed that these ordinances effectively criminalize homelessness and create a cycle of poverty and instability for homeless individuals, a violation of their constitutional rights. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that the city’s anti-homelessness ordinances were unconstitutional. This ruling aligned with a series of other court decisions that have deemed similar ordinances in various cities as unconstitutional. The judges argued that such ordinances violate the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. However, the attorneys general petitioning the Supreme Court argue that these lower court rulings have undermined the ability of cities to regulate and manage homeless encampments, consequently jeopardizing public safety. They highlight the associated issues of drug use, crime, and unsanitary conditions that have been reported in some of these encampments. In their brief to the Supreme Court, the attorneys general assert that cities should have the authority to enforce regulations that balance the rights of the homeless individuals with the rights and safety of the general public. They argue that the lower court rulings have created a precedent that limits local governments’ ability to protect their communities and address the challenges posed by large and unsanctioned homeless camps. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s filing of a brief in support of the attorneys general’s petition is significant and adds another dimension to the case. As a Democrat, Newsom’s participation demonstrates that the issue of homeless encampments goes beyond party lines. It reflects the concerns of many cities, regardless of political affiliation, in dealing with the complexities of homelessness and the need for legislation that provides effective solutions while ensuring public safety. The Supreme Court’s ultimate decision in this case will have far-reaching implications. A ruling in favor of the attorneys general could potentially reverse the lower court decisions and allow cities to enact and enforce stricter regulations on homeless encampments. Conversely, a ruling against the attorneys general could solidify the rights of homeless individuals and limit the ability of cities to regulate and manage these encampments. Regardless of the outcome, it is crucial that lawmakers and policymakers continue to address the root causes of homelessness and work towards long-term solutions. The issue cannot be resolved solely through legal battles. It requires comprehensive approaches that provide affordable housing, access to mental health services, and employment opportunities to tackle the underlying factors contributing to homelessness. The Supreme Court is expected to announce whether it will take up the case in the coming months. Until then, the debate over the rights of homeless individuals and the authority of local governments to manage encampments will continue to evolve, shaping the legal landscape surrounding homelessness in the United States.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...