466

As more people end up experiencing homelessness, they’re also facing increasingly punitive and reactionary responses from local governments and their neighbors. Such policies could become legally codified in short order, with the high court having agreed to hear arguments in Grants Pass v. Johnson.

Originally brought in 2018, the case challenged the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, over an ordinance banning camping. Both a federal judge and, later, a panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck the law down, saying that Grants Pass did not have enough available shelter to offer homeless people. As such, the law was deemed to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The ruling backed up the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling on the Martin v. City of Boise case, which said that punishing or arresting people for camping in public when there are no available shelter beds to take them to instead constituted a violation of the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause in the Eighth Amendment. That applied to localities in the Ninth Circuit’s area of concern and has led to greater legal scrutiny even as cities and counties push for more punitive and restrictive anti-camping laws. In fact, Grants Pass pushed to get the Supreme Court to hear the case, and several nominally liberal cities and states on the West Coast are backing its argument. If the Supreme Court overturns the previous Grants Pass and Boise rulings, it would open the door for cities, states, and counties to essentially criminalize being unhoused on a massive scale.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240223125412/https://newrepublic.com/article/178678/supreme-court-criminalize-homeless-case

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ramble81@lemm.ee 147 points 8 months ago

What’s gonna happen is they’re going to get arrested and sent to a private prison who will then profit off their free slave labor. And in states with three strike rules that’ll happen a couple times back to back and then you have permanent indentured servitude.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 74 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The desire to enslave people is a fundamental conservative trait.

In fact, there has never been a point in human history when conservatives were opposed to slavery, even a little bit.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 32 points 8 months ago

Name a more iconic trio than capitalism, Christianity, and conservatism.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

Centrally organized religions in general. Let's not let the others off the hook. It seems like the second prayer gets away from it's community ideals it turns sour.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago

The last state, (I can't remember which red state it was), to pass an anti homeless law caught flack because they included it in stand your ground reasons. However also in that bill was a nice little pathway to felony for the homeless and a three strikes law.

So yeah. That's exactly it.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months ago

While I broadly agree with the sentiment of your post, three strikes laws usually only apply to felonies, and criminalized homelessness is typically misdemeanor stuff. Not a defense of three strike laws, they're fucking garbage, but the truth matters.

[-] toast@retrolemmy.com 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

And while I broadly agree with your point, it is far too easy for law enforcement to tack on additional charges like resisting arrest. And, yes, in most states resisting arrest is also a misdemeanor, but incidents can be raised to felony resisting arrest if they involve assault on an officer. Unfortunately, it is easy for any innocent physical contact with police to be interpreted as assault, if an officer decides to portray it that way. The truth matters, but so does ACAB

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

How many times do you let yourself be arrested non violently, knowing all of your stuff and money is going to be gone before you get back?

And by non violently we mean doing exactly what the cops say, when they say, no questions asked, mid conversation after they've declared they're arresting you. And hoping they don't beat you up and charge you anyways for annoying them or imagined disrespect.

Putting anyone in adverse contact with police routinely is creating a pathway to being a felon.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Norgur@kbin.social 99 points 8 months ago

Got a problem? Just make it illegal! Bam! Solved!

Next up: Not finding a job is going to become illegal, thus solving unemployment issues!

[-] cmoney@lemmy.world 41 points 8 months ago
[-] Norgur@kbin.social 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

But that would make 3/4 of all politicians just disappear. Huh... come to think of it, we should do it!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] chakan2@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

They did that already...they tied healthcare to being employed.

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 16 points 8 months ago

Conservatives can't understand why we did away with debtors prison.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] GraniteM@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

If you believe that laws forbidding gambling, sale of liquor, sale of contraceptives, requiring definite closing hours, enforcing the Sabbath, or any such, are necessary to the welfare of your community, that is your right and I do not ask you to surrender your beliefs or give up your efforts to put over such laws. But remember that such laws are, at most, a preliminary step in doing away with the evils they indict. Moral evils can never be solved by anything as easy as passing laws alone. If you aid in passing such laws without bothering to follow through by digging in to the involved questions of sociology, economics, and psychology which underlie the causes of the evils you are gunning for, you will not only fail to correct the evils you sought to prohibit but will create a dozen new evils as well.

—Robert A. Heinlein, Take Back Your Government

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 79 points 8 months ago

So the Supreme Court is willing to force states to provide shelter and food to homeless people?

I didn't know the Supreme Court justices were socialists.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 45 points 8 months ago

Oh, no no no, that would be protecting human rights, which conservatives really aren't about. They want to protect states' rights and local governments' rights to harass and brutalize humans. That's their idea of liberty.

[-] aniki@lemm.ee 14 points 8 months ago

It's THEIR liberty -- not yours. You can go get fucked.

[-] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 6 points 8 months ago

In fact, Grants Pass pushed to get the Supreme Court to hear the case, and several nominally liberal cities and states on the West Coast are backing its argument.

How do you explain the liberal cities and states on the West Coast, then?

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 37 points 8 months ago

Liberals be like

Their market worshipping ideology is barely an improvement over conservatism imo. What we need is progressivism and socialism, but so long as conservatives are turning into fascists I feel compelled to suppprt the liberal douchebags Citizens United has left us with (at least as far as my voting goes, anyway).

[-] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 19 points 8 months ago

No war but class war

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Liberal does not mean progressive.

The term liberal was used to refer to fiscal policies, until Republicans in the Reagan era began misusing the word as a pejorative for Democrats. Most Democrats (especially leadership) are not progressives. Most elected Democrats are neo-liberals, even in blue cities. Neo-liberals are conservatives.

We do not have a viable progressive party in the U.S. We have a conservative party and a more conservative party.

[-] reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

Liberals are conservatives. That's how.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Much like doing genocide and supporting the police, there's a bipartisan consensus on inflicting violence on unhoused people.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

"If they wanted their concerns to be taken seriously they should have made a donation to someone's campaign!"

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

Too many neolibs, not enough social Democrats and similar. A number of socialized programs would cut the homeless population. And we probably wouldn't have an opioid crisis if we had socialized healthcare (because pushing opioids was done for profits after all)

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

No see the idea is to force states to place homeless people in for profit prisons. Pure capitalism!

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] j4k3@lemmy.world 74 points 8 months ago

This is my future. I was hit by a driver while riding a bicycle to work 2/26/14. I worked for a chain of bike shops as the Buyer. I left my supercharged Camaro at home and rarely drove. I was 29, no DUI, no reason to have to ride, I chose to ride and race and live. I only barely survived. In 3 days it is the 10 year anniversary of spending most of my days laying in bed. When my folks die, I'll be homeless as it stands now; just another one of more than 100k in the greater Los Angeles basin. If you think disability or social security are some kind of safety net, you are delusional. Most of those people out there are like me, like you, after one bad day at the hands of someone else doing something stupid and completely out of your control.

[-] KillingAndKindess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 8 months ago

I'm assuming you've already taken all the legal steps available in your area.

MOVE!

They're alive, so you have support, you have a roof, use the time now to find places that can help you. Make calls, write emails.

Social nets, the few that exist, are still running their programs with the bootstrap mentality. But social programs can and will help you. There are 100% free often national services that have people who's job it is to find programs, file applications, get you to appointments etc.

[-] chakan2@lemmy.world 53 points 8 months ago

This is going to be the new war on drugs. The private prisons were being emptied, so they needed a new supply of bodies.

[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 46 points 8 months ago

If owning a home is a requirement for just being able to exist in society, then doesn't that mean that homeownership (or at least access to renting a home/apartment/etc) is a human right? Shouldn't prices then be regulated such that salaries/minimum wage actually guaranteed you had access to home ownership/rental? If they're setting home-ownership/rental as a responsibility to be able to live, then they need to guarantee home-ownership/rental is affordable for the majority of Americans.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fastandcurious@lemmy.world 44 points 8 months ago
  1. Make people homeless
  2. Criminalize homelessness
  3. Profit
[-] Che_Donkey@lemmy.ml 16 points 8 months ago

2.1) felony record then banning you from voting

[-] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 8 months ago

A government sponsored slavery plan

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago
  1. buy up all residential real estate
  2. only rent for above market value
  3. pass laws making homelessness illegal
  4. profit
[-] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 29 points 8 months ago

Next thing all the homeless people will be put in camps. That's pretty much the plot of that one DS9 episode. Let's just hope Sisko got the memo and makes an appearance.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

Hell, camps where they didn't have to worry about cops coming through and smashing up all of their stuff and telling them to find a different neighborhood would actually be an improvement over where we're at now

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago

Just think of the prison industrial complex profits this is going to bring!

[-] SteefLem@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago
[-] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 31 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yeah, if that home is in prison, where you are conveniently exempt from the "no slavery" amendment.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 15 points 8 months ago

Going to need to build a whole lot more of those private, for-profit prisons in order to support this.

[-] Paragone@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

"Christians".

Here's their bible's directly instructing the most-devout of Christians to be homeless:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+6%3A7-13&version=AMPC


They'd better be ready to butcher any 2nd-coming of their Christ, in order to prevent him ( should he exist ) from pouring hell onto their fake-values religion that gaslights about being Christian.

What despicable evil.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] blahsay@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

I've got this idea. Maybe all the homeless people should be rounded up and sent to an island somewhere.

We will call that place...Ustralia.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months ago

Arm your homeless neighbors.

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

There are good arguments for both sides here. IMO the solution would require recognizing that homelessness is not a local problem and allocating funds at the federal level for assisting the homeless. I don't see any other way of avoiding the unfair situation created when homeless people quite reasonably choose to travel to cities that provide more assistance to them.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

A conservative is not capable of charity. For a conservative to agree to give something to someone, there must be something in it for them.

For example, if a conservative's church does something nice for someone, they believe their "good deed" will be rewarded with eternal bliss. And the church gets the PR it needs to increase its profitable collections. They all get to call themselves "charitable" while not actually engaging in any charitable behavior.

To a conservative, there is no charity. There is only a transaction.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
466 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19072 readers
1918 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS