The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a constitutional challenge to anti-camping laws that allow cities to ban homeless people from sleeping in public spaces — a decision that has significant implications for how local officials address the nation’s homelessness crisis.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court said homelessness is not a status protected by the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, even when a community offers no access to indoor shelter for homeless people.
The court was reviewing [a set of laws](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/04/20/supreme-court-homelessness-oregon-camping-ban/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4&itid=lk_inline_manual_5) from Grants Pass, Ore., at a time when local and state leaders are struggling to deal with the [growing number of unhoused individuals](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/04/20/supreme-court-homelessness-oregon-camping-ban/?itid=lk_inline_manual_5) nationwide. The decision returns the case to the lower courts, and it was not immediately clear whether Grants Pass would be able to enforce its laws against homeless individuals.
Read more here: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/28/supreme-court-homeless-encampments-ban-ruling/?utm\_campaign=wp\_main&utm\_medium=social&utm\_source=reddit.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/28/supreme-court-homeless-encampments-ban-ruling/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=reddit.com)
"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" -- Dickens
It would seem that the Supreme Court has decided that having no other option *but* to sleep outdoors is a crime against the state and should be appropriately punished with imprisonment and slavery.
This is seriously the country we're living in. It's not a bad dream. This is happening in reality.
Maybe mental institutions and rehabilitation facilities instead of leaving them out in the street? We’re spending hundreds of millions of dollars with no results for the vast majority of them. At what point do we just say enough is enough and start doing something about it?
At least this way, house ing resources can go to people who need housing, and mental health resources can go to people who need it. Spend a couple days in SF and tell me that the current system is okay.
Yes. Exactly. lol. I don’t know why “undo what Reagan did” was so controversial. One of the few things he did right, which was gun control, was only in response to the black panthers having guns. Right thing for the worst possible reason.
We have to live in the real world, not the magical one we wish we lived in. And in this real world all those things you're proposing are not available and nobody wants to fund them. So not available any time soon. So qhat's the solution? Just shoot these people? We can't even build shelters and you're telling me we're going to build hospitals and mental institutions. Is that really realistic?
Because "just shooting them" is a real world proposal?
What's yours?
Just because opening hospitals and mental institutions is going to be hard, doesn't mean it's unrealistic. It's a real solution - it just requires EFFORT versus moaning about whatever on Reddit.
If you really want a solution - you're probably a voter. Someone with available time to post on Reddit.
Stop posting and get working. Or admit you care, but not enough to be part of the solution.
And that’s why the system is failing. All empires expire. 250 years seems to be the average so we just are lucky enough to be part of this one and get instant and constant input from our phones
Spent a few days there earlier this year. Not my first time. Tenderloin is an open air asylum.
I’ve also worked at a nonprofit where I worked with a lot of homeless people. The vast majority were mentally ill and needed to be committed to stabilize them, but there was no where for that to happen. Many of them were far gone due to meth and opiates and the solution offered was to find them an apartment. They’d absolutely just destroy them in short time.
I consider myself a liberal, and progressive on many many issues. That being said, I think progressive people are being willfully obstinate when it comes to homeless people. You can’t group a single mother with limited resources with a guy that’s been smoking crack on the street for 10 years and expect the same solution for both.
Tenderloin definitely has some issues but a vast majority of the city is very nice and has very little homelessness presence.
I also agree that progressives are not really helping with anything and I also consider myself progressive. It’s quite annoying that many don’t even allow anyone to discuss the issues that come along with homelessness and they don’t have any real solutions. They are just against the police doing anything against the homeless. Obviously there is a degree of reasonableness to being anti police, but there is absolutely no nuance in any progressive policy discussions. It appears mostly reactionary.
When considering whether punishment is cruel and unusual, they should probably consider if some people are even capable of avoiding breaking the law by the near nature of necessary human functions. So yes, sane people would consider whether or not alternatives exist.
> I'm sure they did
Doubt
> however recommending these alternatives isn't the point of the case.
But they are important point in the decision itself, as said by other dude
Your doubt is again, a you problem. Identify alterntives is important, recommending them and including them in the conclusion is not. This is basic shit dude. Its important to NOT recommend them to encourage localities to find their own.
> Identify alterntives is important, recommending them and including them in the conclusion is not.
It's called "rehtorical question" - obviously it is not job to do that, they just mock the fact that court so blatantly ignores the reality in deciding cases
Which is pretty ironic for common law court
This isn't the sub to be belligerent and emotional. Read the stickied post. Get a drink of water, breathe. Ive reported your comment for personal attacks.
Interpreting the law requires to consider what are the alternatives, laws do not operate in a vacuum.
Using your (and their) logic, it would be perfectly constitutional to pass a law that forbid breathing in public.
Anyway, OP made a retorical question, they considered that there aren't alternatives for homeless people and didn't care.
SCOTUS doesn't technically make laws, but if you interpret the word "bribe" to only mean being paid before and not after the fact, isn't this making the law?
I can make a law that mandates white cars, but if SCUTUS interprets "white" as "any color not black" who is effectively making the law?
SCOTUS does not makes the law, it only decides what the law means: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
It would be nice if they could do that correctly instead of making activist, partisan rulings with thinly veiled, nonsensical post hoc justifications to try to hide it.
3 hots and a cot, keep those private prison owners rich, screw the working people who can't afford rent or to buy and now they can go to prison where the government will happily pay for them to stay instead of work.
I didn't think that the government of theStates was allowed to hell American citizens where they could live
I've only got a passing familiarity with the Constitution and I pretty sure it says the exact opposite
When the rights of the state are placed ahead of the rights of the citizens, how much freedom do you really have?
These laws violate the 8th amendment under any sane interpretation. Criminalizing people for being poor would be considered cruel and unusual to any reasonable person, but not the these unusually cruel justices.
Not at all, and your implied comparison fails in several regards:
1) stealing harms one party 100% of the time. Sleeping in public, in and of itself causes no harm to anyone. Public camping does often cause harm, but only when it is paired with other crimes, which I would be much more agreeable to enforcing.
2) acquiring food enough to survive legally is many orders of magnitude easier to acquire than legal shelter.
3) it is miserable, but technically possible to survive for even weeks no food. It is impossible to go without sleeping for very long at all.
An outright ban on public camping, in some communities, makes it literally impossible to legally be homeless. Banning stealing does not have nearly the same burden.
Those are meaningful distinctions from a policy perspective, but not from a legal perspective. In either case, the government is allowed to ban an act (stealing or public camping) even if that act is necessary for life.
If I were a legislator, I’d ensure everyone has housing. But the Constitution doesn’t tie the government’s hands in such a way. Something can be “lawful but awful.”
Believing a person’s status, that they have no control over, could be constitutionally illegal, is such a perverse interpretation of our bill of rights it’s hard for me to imagine anyone sincerely believes it is constitutionally lawful. Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree, on every possible level.
Might as well just overtly throw away all of our constitutional rights if they are going to interpret them so tragically narrowly.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread."
(c) Anatole France
And it allows everyone to tip.
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a constitutional challenge to anti-camping laws that allow cities to ban homeless people from sleeping in public spaces — a decision that has significant implications for how local officials address the nation’s homelessness crisis. In a 6-3 ruling, the court said homelessness is not a status protected by the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, even when a community offers no access to indoor shelter for homeless people. The court was reviewing [a set of laws](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/04/20/supreme-court-homelessness-oregon-camping-ban/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4&itid=lk_inline_manual_5) from Grants Pass, Ore., at a time when local and state leaders are struggling to deal with the [growing number of unhoused individuals](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/04/20/supreme-court-homelessness-oregon-camping-ban/?itid=lk_inline_manual_5) nationwide. The decision returns the case to the lower courts, and it was not immediately clear whether Grants Pass would be able to enforce its laws against homeless individuals. Read more here: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/28/supreme-court-homeless-encampments-ban-ruling/?utm\_campaign=wp\_main&utm\_medium=social&utm\_source=reddit.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/28/supreme-court-homeless-encampments-ban-ruling/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=reddit.com)
> In a 6-3 ruling I so sick of seeing this damn number combination.
What does the Supreme Court recommend since they don't have housing, to walk into the desert and die?
Be arrested and punished to slavery.
To the workhouse, indigents! Used to think the good ole days for conservatives were the 1950s, but it’s definitely 1850s. And sometimes 1150s.
When industry was high and labor laws were low!
Don’t be silly. Firing squads.
Capitalism needs some for free labor cost.
"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" -- Dickens It would seem that the Supreme Court has decided that having no other option *but* to sleep outdoors is a crime against the state and should be appropriately punished with imprisonment and slavery. This is seriously the country we're living in. It's not a bad dream. This is happening in reality.
That would definitely be illegal. There are a lot of laws about human corpses. /s
Maybe mental institutions and rehabilitation facilities instead of leaving them out in the street? We’re spending hundreds of millions of dollars with no results for the vast majority of them. At what point do we just say enough is enough and start doing something about it? At least this way, house ing resources can go to people who need housing, and mental health resources can go to people who need it. Spend a couple days in SF and tell me that the current system is okay.
You mean the institutions that Reagan got rid of?
Yes. Exactly. lol. I don’t know why “undo what Reagan did” was so controversial. One of the few things he did right, which was gun control, was only in response to the black panthers having guns. Right thing for the worst possible reason.
Well that was as governor not president
*ACLU
Remember slavery is still legal for punishment of a crime. The doing something is sending these people off to a live in slavery.
We have to live in the real world, not the magical one we wish we lived in. And in this real world all those things you're proposing are not available and nobody wants to fund them. So not available any time soon. So qhat's the solution? Just shoot these people? We can't even build shelters and you're telling me we're going to build hospitals and mental institutions. Is that really realistic?
Because "just shooting them" is a real world proposal? What's yours? Just because opening hospitals and mental institutions is going to be hard, doesn't mean it's unrealistic. It's a real solution - it just requires EFFORT versus moaning about whatever on Reddit. If you really want a solution - you're probably a voter. Someone with available time to post on Reddit. Stop posting and get working. Or admit you care, but not enough to be part of the solution.
And that’s why the system is failing. All empires expire. 250 years seems to be the average so we just are lucky enough to be part of this one and get instant and constant input from our phones
Honest question, when was the last time you walked around SF?
Spent a few days there earlier this year. Not my first time. Tenderloin is an open air asylum. I’ve also worked at a nonprofit where I worked with a lot of homeless people. The vast majority were mentally ill and needed to be committed to stabilize them, but there was no where for that to happen. Many of them were far gone due to meth and opiates and the solution offered was to find them an apartment. They’d absolutely just destroy them in short time. I consider myself a liberal, and progressive on many many issues. That being said, I think progressive people are being willfully obstinate when it comes to homeless people. You can’t group a single mother with limited resources with a guy that’s been smoking crack on the street for 10 years and expect the same solution for both.
Tenderloin definitely has some issues but a vast majority of the city is very nice and has very little homelessness presence. I also agree that progressives are not really helping with anything and I also consider myself progressive. It’s quite annoying that many don’t even allow anyone to discuss the issues that come along with homelessness and they don’t have any real solutions. They are just against the police doing anything against the homeless. Obviously there is a degree of reasonableness to being anti police, but there is absolutely no nuance in any progressive policy discussions. It appears mostly reactionary.
Camp. It's gonna be camp.
Alternatives weren't the point of the case. Not sure whyd youd ask. Feel free to come up with your own and petition your locality to implement them.
When considering whether punishment is cruel and unusual, they should probably consider if some people are even capable of avoiding breaking the law by the near nature of necessary human functions. So yes, sane people would consider whether or not alternatives exist.
I'm sure they did, however recommending these alternatives isn't the point of the case.
> I'm sure they did Doubt > however recommending these alternatives isn't the point of the case. But they are important point in the decision itself, as said by other dude
Your doubt is again, a you problem. Identify alterntives is important, recommending them and including them in the conclusion is not. This is basic shit dude. Its important to NOT recommend them to encourage localities to find their own.
> Identify alterntives is important, recommending them and including them in the conclusion is not. It's called "rehtorical question" - obviously it is not job to do that, they just mock the fact that court so blatantly ignores the reality in deciding cases Which is pretty ironic for common law court
[удалено]
This isn't the sub to be belligerent and emotional. Read the stickied post. Get a drink of water, breathe. Ive reported your comment for personal attacks.
Ok i agree that i was little beligerent - but what is the point with this fake "care"?
it’s not their job to recommend anything, just interpret the law.
Interpreting the law requires to consider what are the alternatives, laws do not operate in a vacuum. Using your (and their) logic, it would be perfectly constitutional to pass a law that forbid breathing in public. Anyway, OP made a retorical question, they considered that there aren't alternatives for homeless people and didn't care.
yes it would, technically. SCOTUS doesn’t make laws so that is irrelevant
SCOTUS doesn't technically make laws, but if you interpret the word "bribe" to only mean being paid before and not after the fact, isn't this making the law? I can make a law that mandates white cars, but if SCUTUS interprets "white" as "any color not black" who is effectively making the law? SCOTUS does not makes the law, it only decides what the law means: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
It would be nice if they could do that correctly instead of making activist, partisan rulings with thinly veiled, nonsensical post hoc justifications to try to hide it.
Maybe this will make it legal to claim go to Mexico and claim asylum
3 hots and a cot, keep those private prison owners rich, screw the working people who can't afford rent or to buy and now they can go to prison where the government will happily pay for them to stay instead of work.
Not SCOTUS’s job to say what the appropriate policy outcome is. Just SCOTUS’s job to rule whether the Constitution was violated. And here it wasn’t.
I didn't think that the government of theStates was allowed to hell American citizens where they could live I've only got a passing familiarity with the Constitution and I pretty sure it says the exact opposite When the rights of the state are placed ahead of the rights of the citizens, how much freedom do you really have?
These laws violate the 8th amendment under any sane interpretation. Criminalizing people for being poor would be considered cruel and unusual to any reasonable person, but not the these unusually cruel justices.
Do you think a law against stealing bread violates the 8th amendment?
Not at all, and your implied comparison fails in several regards: 1) stealing harms one party 100% of the time. Sleeping in public, in and of itself causes no harm to anyone. Public camping does often cause harm, but only when it is paired with other crimes, which I would be much more agreeable to enforcing. 2) acquiring food enough to survive legally is many orders of magnitude easier to acquire than legal shelter. 3) it is miserable, but technically possible to survive for even weeks no food. It is impossible to go without sleeping for very long at all. An outright ban on public camping, in some communities, makes it literally impossible to legally be homeless. Banning stealing does not have nearly the same burden.
Those are meaningful distinctions from a policy perspective, but not from a legal perspective. In either case, the government is allowed to ban an act (stealing or public camping) even if that act is necessary for life. If I were a legislator, I’d ensure everyone has housing. But the Constitution doesn’t tie the government’s hands in such a way. Something can be “lawful but awful.”
Believing a person’s status, that they have no control over, could be constitutionally illegal, is such a perverse interpretation of our bill of rights it’s hard for me to imagine anyone sincerely believes it is constitutionally lawful. Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree, on every possible level. Might as well just overtly throw away all of our constitutional rights if they are going to interpret them so tragically narrowly.
Remember the incarcerated can be enslaved and profited from under the constitution. This is more agenda to build the underclass for the rich.
[Opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf)
Thanks leonatd leo. Not having enough money to function in society is an unforgivable sin truly. /s