{"id":33077,"date":"2024-04-20T13:22:44","date_gmt":"2024-04-20T20:22:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=33077"},"modified":"2024-04-20T13:23:08","modified_gmt":"2024-04-20T20:23:08","slug":"the-supreme-court-case-that-could-turn-homelessness-into-a-crime-explained","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2024\/04\/20\/the-supreme-court-case-that-could-turn-homelessness-into-a-crime-explained\/","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court case that could turn homelessness into a crime, explained"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Grants Pass v. Johnson<\/em> could make the entire criminal justice system far crueler. It also tests the limits of judicial power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ian Millhiser<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0Apr 17, 2024 (Vox.com)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Two
Unhoused people photographed in San Francisco in February of 2024.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Ian Millhiser<\/a> is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court<\/a> will hear a case later this month that could make life drastically worse for homeless Americans. It also challenges one of the most foundational principles of American criminal law \u2014 the rule that someone may not be charged with a crime simply because of who they are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Six years ago, a federal appeals court held<\/a> that the Constitution \u201cbars a city from prosecuting people criminally for sleeping outside on public property when those people have no home or other shelter to go to.\u201d Under the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\u2019s decision in Martin v. Boise<\/em>, people without permanent shelter could no longer be arrested simply because they are homeless, at least in the nine western states presided over by the Ninth Circuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As my colleague Rachel Cohen wrote about a year ago<\/a>, \u201cmuch of the fight about how to address <\/strong>homelessness today is, at this point, a fight about Martin<\/em>.\u201d <\/em>Dozens of court cases have cited this decision, including federal courts in Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Florida, Texas, and New York \u2014 none of which are in the Ninth Circuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some of the decisions applying Martin <\/em>have led very prominent Democrats, and institutions led by Democrats, to call upon the Supreme Court to intervene. Both the city of San Francisco<\/a> and California Gov. Gavin Newsom<\/a>, for example, filed briefs in that Court complaining about a fairly recent decision that, the city\u2019s brief claims, prevents it from clearing out encampments that \u201cpresent often-intractable health, safety, and welfare challenges for both the City and the public at large.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On April 22, the justices will hear oral arguments in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson<\/em><\/a>, one of the many decisions applying Martin<\/em> \u2014 and, at least according to many of its critics, expanding that decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Martin<\/em> arose out of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Robinson v. California<\/em><\/a> (1962), which struck down a California law making it a crime to \u201cbe addicted to the use of narcotics.\u201d Likening this law to one making \u201cit a criminal offense for a person to be mentally ill, or a leper, or to be afflicted with a venereal disease,\u201d the Court held that the law may not criminalize someone\u2019s \u201cstatus\u201d as a person with addiction and must instead target some kind of criminal \u201cact.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, a state may punish \u201ca person for the use of narcotics, for their purchase, sale or possession, or for antisocial or disorderly behavior resulting from their administration.\u201d But, absent any evidence that a suspect actually used illegal drugs within the state of California, the state could not punish someone simply for existing while addicted to a drug.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Grants Pass<\/em> case does not involve an explicit ban on existing while homeless, but the Ninth Circuit determined that the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, imposed such tight restrictions <\/a>on anyone attempting to sleep outdoors that it amounted to an effective ban on being homeless within city limits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are very strong arguments that the Ninth Circuit\u2019s Grants Pass<\/em> decision went too far. As the Biden administration says in its brief<\/a> to the justices, the Ninth Circuit\u2019s opinion did not adequately distinguish between people facing \u201cinvoluntary\u201d homelessness and individuals who may have viable housing options. This error likely violates a federal civil procedure rule<\/a>, which governs when multiple parties with similar legal claims can join together in the same lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the city, somewhat bizarrely, does not raise this error with the Supreme Court. Instead, the city spends the bulk of its brief<\/a> challenging one of Robinson\u2019<\/em>s fundamental assumptions: that the Constitution\u2019s ban on \u201ccruel and unusual punishments<\/a>\u201d limits the government\u2019s ability to \u201cdetermine what conduct should be a crime.\u201d So the Supreme Court could use this case as a vehicle to overrule Robinson.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That outcome is unlikely, but it would be catastrophic for civil liberties. If the law can criminalize status, rather than only acts, that would mean someone could be arrested for having a disease. A rich community might ban people who do not have a high enough income or net worth from entering it. A state could prohibit anyone with a felony conviction from entering its borders, even if that individual has already served their sentence. It could even potentially target thought crimes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Imagine, for example, that an individual is suspected of being sexually attracted to children but has never acted on such urges. A state could potentially subject this individual to an intrusive police investigation of their own thoughts, based on the mere suspicion that they are a pedophile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A more likely outcome, however, is that the Court will drastically roll back Martin<\/em> or even repudiate it altogether. The Court has long warned that the judiciary is ill suited to solve many problems arising out of poverty<\/a>. And the current slate of justices is more conservative than any Court since the 1930s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n