No more excuses #1: SCOTUS clears the way for CA cities like SJ to manage inhumane and dangerous homeless encampments
Rejecting the argument that preventing homeless from appropriating public parks and spaces violated the 8th Amendment, SCOTUS empowers cities like SJ to enforce anti-camping ordinances. Legal Insurrection unpacks the decisions logic and issues.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided whether cities should enforce anti-camping ordinances against the homeless in an Eighth Amendment challenge to an Oregon law. The Court held 6–3 that cities may enforce anti-camping ordinances against homeless people even when insufficient shelter beds are available.
Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, which the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined.
The Court held that “[t]he enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.”
The Eighth Amendment states, “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
The majority expounded on the history of the Eighth Amendment, which “has always been considered, and properly so, to be directed at the method or kind of punishment,” not what conduct may be punished.
Because the punishment imposed against homeless campers was not designed to add “terror, pain, or disgrace,” it passed constitutional muster, the majority held.
Much hinged on Robinson v. California (1962), where the Supreme Court held that the government may not criminalize the status of being a drug addict even though it may criminalize the conduct of drug use. Criminalizing the status of addiction, the Court held, violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
Oral arguments in this case, which Legal Insurrection covered, focused heavily on Robinson and the distinction between conduct and status. Some justices questioned whether criminalizing unavoidable conduct—sleeping in public while homeless—inherently criminalized the status of homeless because the conduct and status were inseparable.
The majority distinguished this case from Robinson in that the challenged ordinance criminalized conduct regardless of status:
“It makes no difference whether the charged defendant is currently a person experiencing homelessness, a backpacker on vacation, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building.”
Thomas devoted his concurrence to criticizing the Robinson decision, which he viewed as “wrongly decided.” He argued that “rather than let Robinson’s erroneous holding linger in the background of our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, we should dispose of it once and for all.”
The challenged ordinance, enacted by the petitioner Grants Pass, Oregon, prohibits “occupy[ing] a campsite” on public property, including a park. “Campsite” is defined as “any place where bedding, sleeping bag, or other material used for bedding purposes . . . is placed.”
Individuals violating the ordinance face a maximum civil penalty of $537.60, which includes a failure-to-pay penalty. Habitual violators are subject to incarceration for criminal trespass.
Read the whole thing here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.