The , Supreme Court , ruled Friday that places in , California , and the West may enforce legislation restricting homeless camps on sidewalks and other public property.
In a 6- 3 choice,  , the justices , disagreed with the , 9th Circuit Court , in , San Francisco , and ruled that it is not” cruel and unusual” sentence for city authorities to ban poor people from sleeping on the streets or in parks.
” Homelessness is complex”, Justice , Neil M. Gorsuch , wrote for the jury. ” Its reasons are numerous. So might the necessary public policy actions get. In the end, the inquiry raised by this situation is whether the 8th Amendment gives federal judges main authority to determine those causes and develop those solutions. It does not”.
According to Gorsuch, the 8th Amendment “does not sanction federal courts to take those rights and obligations from the American people and in place define this country’s poverty policy.”
He was joined by the other traditional magistrates, while the three liberal justices dissented.
” Nap is a biological need, not a crime”, Justice , Sonia Sotomayor , said in protest. ” For some people, sleeping outdoors is their only alternative. For people with no exposure to shelter, that punishes them for being poor. That is inexcusable and unlawful. Under the 8th Amendment, punishing people for their reputation is” cruel and unusual” and is” cruel and unusual.”
The decision is both a positive step for Westchester town officials and a positive step for poor rights advocates. Since 2018, the activists have won cases from the 9th Circuit that ruled it unlawful to impose legislation aimed at people who had no place to sleep and no home.
Some city officials said those decisions led to the growth of camp camps in , Los Angeles , and most cities on the , West Coast. They joined an , Oregon , city’s charm to the , Supreme Court , seeking to define their authority over open house.
Nothing about Friday’s decision may obligate cities or their police to impose stronger repression against the poor, but it will completely some of them.
California , Gov.  , Gavin Newsom , hailed the choice:” Today’s decision by the , U. S. Supreme Court , provides state and local authorities the definitive authority to implement and enforce laws to obvious illegal outposts from our streets. This choice removes the lawful ambiguities that have plagued local authorities for decades and limited their ability to implement common sense measures to safeguard the safety and well-being of our communities.
Los Angeles , lawyer , Theane Evangelis, who represented the , Oregon , city that had appealed, said the court “delivered immediate pleasure to the many communities that have struggled to address the growing issue of unsafe encampments”.
Ann Oliva, chief executive of the , National Alliance to End Homelessness, condemned the decision.
This decision gives a risky precedent that will harm people who are homeless and give local officials who prefer pointless and expensive arrests and imprisonment to real solutions, she said. This decision allows leaders to shift the burden to law enforcement because elected officials need to be focused on long-term, sustainable solutions that are supported by evidence, including funding the affordable housing and supportive services their constituents require. This tactic has consistently failed to reduce homelessness in the past, and it will undoubtedly fail to do so in the future.
The case before the court arose in , Grants Pass, Ore., a city of 38, 000 people. There were only a few shelters, which lacked space for all of them, and an estimated 50 to 600 people were homeless.
Homeless advocates claimed that the city’s police abused and threatened to deport people who lived on the side streets or in their cars. They said the city’s aim was to “banish” these homeless people from the town.
Because the city was essentially punishing people for being homeless, they sued and prevailed before a federal judge who overturned the anti-campaign ordinance.
A divided 9th Circuit agreed by a 2- 1 vote. Judge , Roslyn Silver , said the” city of , Grants Pass , cannot, consistent with the 8th Amendment, enforce its anti- camping ordinances against homeless persons for the mere act of sleeping outside with rudimentary protection from the elements, or for sleeping in their car at night, when there is no other place in the city for them to go”.
The full 9th Circuit then split 14 to 13 to uphold that ruling.
Newsom and city attorneys from , Los Angeles,  , San Francisco,  , San Diego  , and , Phoenix , were among two dozen government and business groups that urged the high court to hear the , appeal in Johnson vs.  , Grants Pass , and overturn the 9th Circuit.
Only once before — and 40 years ago — did a case on homelessness come before the , Supreme Court.
A group called the Community for Creative Non- Violence sought a permit in 1982 for a homelessness- awareness demonstration in , Lafayette Square , across the street from the , White House, and their request included a” symbolic tent city” where about 50 people would sleep.
The , National Park Service , approved the permit to demonstrate but refused the request for sleeping in the park. The advocates sued, contending the ban on camping violated the 1st Amendment’s protection for free speech. They lost before a federal judge, won in the , U. S.  , appeals court and finally lost, 7 to 2, in the , Supreme Court , in 1984.
Writing for the court,  , Justice , Byron White , said the 1st Amendment permits reasonable limits , on the “time, place and manner” of demonstrations. ” We have very little trouble concluding that the , Park Service , may prohibit overnight sleeping in the parks involved here”, he wrote.
___
© 2024 Los Angeles Times
Distributed by , Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
