Supreme Court rules cities may enforce laws against homeless encampments

EvilEyeFleegle

Dogpatch USA
Gold Supporting Member
Nov 2, 2017
16,186
9,265
1,280
Twin Falls Idaho
Well..quite the SCOTUS drop today...a mixed bag of decisions for me...but, sadly, I approve of this one:


The Supreme Court ruled Friday that cities in California and the West may enforce laws restricting homeless encampments on sidewalks and other public property.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices disagreed with the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco and ruled it is not “cruel and unusual” punishment for city officials to forbid homeless people from sleeping on the streets or in parks.
“Homelessness is complex,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the court. “Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the 8th Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not.”

Gorsuch said the 8th Amendment “does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this nation’s homelessness policy.”

He was joined by the other conservative justices, while the three liberal justices dissented.

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in dissent. “For some people, sleeping outside is their only option. For people with no access to shelter, that punishes them for being homeless. That is unconscionable and unconstitutional. Punishing people for their status is ‘cruel and unusual’ under the 8th Amendment.”

The ruling is a significant victory for city officials in the West and a setback for homeless rights advocates. Since 2018, the advocates had won rulings from the 9th Circuit that held it was unconstitutional to enforce anti-camping laws against people who had no home and nowhere to sleep.

Many city officials said those rulings led to the growth of tent encampments in Los Angeles and most cities on the West Coast. They joined an Oregon city’s appeal to the Supreme Court seeking to clarify their authority over public property.

Nothing in today’s decision requires cities or their police to take stronger enforcement action against homeless people, but it will free some of them to do so.
 
Huge win for law and order... there are a pack of homeless in a town not too far from mine and they have set up a home for themselves under a bridge overpass... every time state troopers would move them out their so call attorney stepped in and filed a lawsuit...
This gives the people their city back... you do not have the right to camp and live on public property deemed to not be a campground... period...
 
While I support the ruling, it doesn't address or solve the underlying issues of affordable housing, drug treatment, and mental health counseling.
True. Of course, it is not the SCOTUS's job to provide any of those solutions...which is what the majority opinion stated.
Cities, counties and states are going to have to provide solutions..and some of those solutions may not be the 'friendly' ones of the homeless advocates.
One issue is that there are beds for the unhoused..but some of them would rather be homeless---and stay stoned, or drunk.
Then there are the many with serious mental issues. Everyone knows the solution..but no one is willing to commit the money.
 
While I support the ruling, it doesn't address or solve the underlying issues of affordable housing, drug treatment, and mental health counseling.
The first step to fixing those problems is to remove the mattress at rock bottom... these people will need to come for help to get healed... and they won't come in as long as they have government provided soft landings and never hit rock bottom....
 
True. Of course, it is not the SCOTUS's job to provide any of those solutions...which is what the majority opinion stated.
Cities, counties and states are going to have to provide solutions..ans some of those solutions may not be the 'friendly' ones of the homeless advocates.
One issue is that there are beds for the unhoused..but wo0me of them would rather be homeless---and stay stoned, or drunk.
Then there are the many with serious mental issues. Everyone knows the solution..but no one is willing to commit the money.

They commit the money, what they don't do is impose the fix on the people in question. Homeless advocates have no stake in solving anything, it would put them out of a job.
 
People like this don't want any of that. You ready to force them into it?
They should be given the choice. Sprinkled in these homeless encampments are a fair number of ex-servicemen and women.
Bit of a slap in the face that they should be treated like this...addiction or not.
 
A lot of these new encampments are in some of the most expensive areas of the states... these people have no incentive to leave... why would they... they have free tents money for food an ocean view in some cases and free healthcare... they pay no rent no taxes and they contribute nothing... and we let them do it...
We must put our foot down and say no... if you want to be a bum and continue to be homeless go to BLM land somewhere...
 
They should be given the choice. Sprinkled in these homeless encampments are a fair number of ex-servicemen and women.
Bit of a slap in the face that they should be treated like this...addiction or not.
I can't speak much for my state because I haven't looked into it here... but California for example has a plethora of options for these people but they all require sobriety first.... so now they are setting up get clean centers... over half of the participants don't finish... they leave to go back to the streets... maybe now with no good options of where to live they will stay longer...
 
They should be given the choice. Sprinkled in these homeless encampments are a fair number of ex-servicemen and women.
Bit of a slap in the face that they should be treated like this...addiction or not.

They are treated like this by the people supposedly helping them. Just enough help to keep them barely alive.

Try and force treatment and these same people fight you tooth and nail.
 
Not that huge, your major Liberal Heck Holes will still allow homeless encampments on their sidewalks.

It isn't like the Court outlawed sidewalk tents , they just said localities could ban them.
 
Well..quite the SCOTUS drop today...a mixed bag of decisions for me...but, sadly, I approve of this one:


The Supreme Court ruled Friday that cities in California and the West may enforce laws restricting homeless encampments on sidewalks and other public property.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices disagreed with the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco and ruled it is not “cruel and unusual” punishment for city officials to forbid homeless people from sleeping on the streets or in parks.
“Homelessness is complex,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the court. “Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the 8th Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not.”

Gorsuch said the 8th Amendment “does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this nation’s homelessness policy.”

He was joined by the other conservative justices, while the three liberal justices dissented.

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in dissent. “For some people, sleeping outside is their only option. For people with no access to shelter, that punishes them for being homeless. That is unconscionable and unconstitutional. Punishing people for their status is ‘cruel and unusual’ under the 8th Amendment.”

The ruling is a significant victory for city officials in the West and a setback for homeless rights advocates. Since 2018, the advocates had won rulings from the 9th Circuit that held it was unconstitutional to enforce anti-camping laws against people who had no home and nowhere to sleep.

Many city officials said those rulings led to the growth of tent encampments in Los Angeles and most cities on the West Coast. They joined an Oregon city’s appeal to the Supreme Court seeking to clarify their authority over public property.

Nothing in today’s decision requires cities or their police to take stronger enforcement action against homeless people, but it will free some of them to do so.
i'll go with the court on this one.

cities are responsible for public health and zoning .

my sympathy for the homeless is great, but the city also has responsibility to its more stable citizens.
 
It must depend on the state....My town gives them the bum's rush as soon as they are spotted.

I swear though, you have to fight the do-gooders tooth-n-nail not to set-up old houses for them.

Build it and they will come.

 
So, they can now ticket homeless people that have no money

What happens when they do not pay the ticket.

Are the citizens of the local area up for footing the bill to jail them all?
 
So, they can now ticket homeless people that have no money

What happens when they do not pay the ticket.

Are the citizens of the local area up for footing the bill to jail them all?
they are footing the bill for cleaning up after them as well as not being able to walk the streets of their own town safely,,,
 

Forum List

Back
Top