150
Homelessness case before US supreme court could have far-reaching effects (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Justices to consider constitutionality of punishing people for sleeping outside as western states seek to address encampments

A case that could significantly change how US cities respond to the growing homelessness crisis has reached the supreme court as record numbers of people in America find themselves without a permanent place to live.

The justices on Monday will consider a challenge to rulings from a California-based appeals court that found punishing people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.

The case stems from a 2019 camping ban enacted by city officials in Grants Pass, Oregon, a small mountain town where rents are rising and there is just one overnight shelter for adults. Debra Blake, who had lost her job a decade earlier and was unhoused, was cited for illegal camping. After being convicted and fined, she soon joined other unhoused residents in suing the city over the ordinance.

all 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago

I don't have any faith in this Supreme Court to do the right thing. I am sure the facsiest and for profit prisons hope they vote their way.

We should revolt if they do. How do you make illegal to be homeless if our government and society won't help them not be so?

Democrats should rally people against this but they won't.

[-] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

It would seem that doing the morally right thing here would have far reaching affects. However, I too, don’t see how we could consider homelessness a crime. That’s just too far. Those folks basically have nothing left to lose. Not a great combo if you want to keep the peace.

[-] Spaghetti_Hitchens@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago

How do you make it illegal to sleep on your own planet (which is something every human must do)?

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Well we get to watch the Supreme Court make that decision. I really want to see how Thomas and Roberts justify doing just that.

[-] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBHouBDjqsc

Adventure Time actually explained it perfectly.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 36 points 2 years ago

If they want to allow cities to make laws punishing people for sleeping in tents in undesignated areas, they need to provide adequate temporary housing at no cost, and with no prerequisites, like being sober.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

Or even just free to use camp grounds. Just have a sweep done every couple weeks to do cleanup, not even just for drugs just because thatd be good for maintenance.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Free to use campgrounds would be fine as long as people are not allowed to stay longer than a certain period of time. They can move from different campground to campground and then back again, but it’s important that campgrounds don’t become permanent dwellings.

There are a lot of empty office buildings in my city. Perhaps they should be squatting on capitalism.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 16 points 2 years ago

The thing to keep in mind is that the specific question being asked here is: can cities punish homeless people for existing outdoors if they haven't provided somewhere for the homeless to go to? Grants Pass, OR and Co. say yes.

[-] Ononotagain@kbin.social 15 points 2 years ago

He asked what would happen in the city if the ordinances were to remain blocked.

“The city’s hands will be tied. It will be forced to surrender its public spaces, as it [already] has been,” Evangelis said.

This is the crux of it. The city does not consider the homeless to be the "public". Can't be homeless and a citizen at the same time apparently.

To make this clear, this is a about the government further destroying the entire concept of "public spaces". Dividing further who counts as "the public".

[-] Tebbie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Maybe they should invest in proper shelters then if they don't want them in the parks...

[-] tb_@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I've read elsewhere that the city already had a case like this, where it was ruled it wasn't illegal as long as there wasn't adequate shelter. Or something along those lines.

[-] shiroininja@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

Time yet again for the Supreme Court to attack human rights again! This time it’s the right to exist!

[-] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Bell Riots - September 2024

[-] tearsintherain@leminal.space 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Entering stage two of some dystopian fiction written many, many years ago. I hear markets are doing great, record profits in the pandemic age.

this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
150 points (97.5% liked)

News

36569 readers
395 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world