By Adam Liptak
New York TimesWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said on Monday that it would not hear a closely watched case on whether cities can make it a crime for homeless people to sleep outdoors.
The case was brought by six people in Boise, Idaho, who said a pair of local laws violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. One prohibited “camping” in streets, parks and other public property. The other prohibited “lodging or sleeping” in any place, whether public or private, without the owner’s permission.
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled for the plaintiffs and struck down the laws, saying the Constitution does not allow prosecuting people for sleeping outdoors if there is no shelter available.
The Supreme Court typically understands the Eighth Amendment to address acceptable punishments rather than what conduct can be made criminal. But in 1962, it struck down a California law that made being a drug addict a crime on Eighth Amendment grounds.
Relying on that decision and quoting from an earlier Ninth Circuit ruling, Judge Marsha Berzon, writing for the panel, said “the Eighth Amendment prohibits the state from punishing an involuntary act or condition if it is the unavoidable consequence of one’s status or being.”
“As long as there is no option of sleeping indoors,” Judge Berzon wrote, “the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.”
Dissenting from the full Ninth Circuit’s refusal to consider the panl's decision, Judge Mila D. Smith Jr., joined by five colleagues, wrote that the ruling “has begun wreaking havoc on local governments, residents and businesses.”
“Under the panel’s decision,” Judge Smith wrote, “local governments are forbidden from enforcing laws restricting public sleeping and camping unless they provide shelter for every homeless individual within their jurisdictions. Moreover, the panel’s reasoning will soon prevent local governments from enforcing a host of other public health and safety laws, such as those prohibiting public defecation and urination.”
In their petition seeking Supreme Court review in the case, City of Boise v. Martin, No. 19-247, lawyers for the city said the appeals court had heedlessly created a new right not grounded in the Constitution.
“The consequences of the Ninth Circuit’s erroneous decision have already been — and will continue to be — far-reaching and catastrophic,” the city’s petition said. “The creation of a de facto constitutional right to live on sidewalks and in parks will cripple the ability of more than 1,600 municipalities in the Ninth Circuit to maintain the health and safety of their communities. Public encampments, now protected by the Constitution under the Ninth Circuit’s decision, have spawned crime and violence, incubated disease, and created environmental hazards that threaten the lives and well-being both of those living on the streets and the public at large.”
The petition attracted some 20 supporting briefs, many from cities, counties and states. According to John P. Elwood, a Supreme Court specialist at Arnold & Porter, that may have set a record for the number of such filings at this stage of a Supreme Court case.
Lawyers for the homeless people challenging the Boise laws said the Ninth Circuit’s ruling was modest and unexceptional.
“The decision below recognizes that it would be cruel and unusual to criminally punish a homeless person who violates the law simply because he engages in the biologically compelled activities of sitting, lying or sleeping outside when he has no place else to go,” their brief said. “That result reflects basic common sense.”
To read rest of story, click on link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/us/supreme-court-idaho-homeless-sleeping.html
10 comments:
Was the City of Brownsville cracking down on the homeless, Montoya? FAKE NEWS!!!
Trump has neither the moral compass nor the temperament to serve. Republicans who continue to defend Trump amid the impeachment inquiry over the Ukraine scandal are doing “far worse” than marching along to his beat. Their defense of him is imbued with an ugliness, a meanness and a willingness to attack and slander those who have shed blood for our country, who have dedicated their lives and careers to its defense and its security, and whose job is to preserve the nation’s status as a beacon of hope.
Bus shelters, Erasmo, Elizondo, the homeless. Get that shit here daily on El Rruns Rruns.
People are now protected and have rights over law abiding tax paying citizens to cause littering, diseases in the open. Again the problem was not created by you and me but the actions of people who made a choice and now the cities must provide free room and board? These homeless people get a welfare check for their habits of liquor and drugs. To feel sorry for these people is a joke.
New York Times charges to read their stories, can't afford the subscription
Pus no que el trey wanted his downtown to be a mini 6th street. There it is, another asset to make it look like it is. The bums.
OK, the government can't make a human condition a crime. That means being a Mexican is not a crime. Sounds right to me.
Dear 11:39 . You are full of shit! Trump has done more to strengthen and defend this country than any of the other recent Presidents combined.
para los criminales December 18, 2019 at 10:40 AM
but a behavior condition is a crime, so whites are criminals sounds perfect and they keep showing it over and over. idiotas
Whites like to sleep on the floor where they belong...
Post a Comment