The plight of the homeless calls out to anyone with a heart. Drug and alcohol addiction, mental illness, and the outsized cost of housing have driven a sharp uptick in the number of homeless living in tents and makeshift camps in public places.
The spiraling crisis – in all our big cities but particularly in the West – has led to cities and homeless advocates disagreeing about what the government can or should do to solve the problem versus what it must do as a matter of federal constitutional law.
That latter question is now before the Supreme Court in a case called City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. The court granted the case for review last week and will hear arguments in the case later this year. At stake is a very basic question:
Does the Constitution demand that the government do something for each of us proactively, or does it rather state what the government cannot do to us?
In City of Grants Pass, homeless advocates contend that cities like Grants Pass, Oregon, San Francisco, Phoenix and Los Angeles are fining or criminalizing the homeless of their cities just for the “crime” of living in their cities.
When cities issue citations to the homeless to remove them from public sidewalks and parks, the cities are punishing the homeless for their very existence – since the homeless are “involuntarily” homeless and need a place to sleep, after all. They have no choice in the matter. So their argument goes.
On the other hand, the cities contend they are responsible for maintaining order and protecting both public and private property. They offer this as the reason they seek to move the homeless from public spaces to places where they may receive help.
A community may want to help the homeless conquer their demons, but that does not mean it must give up the public safety and protection of private property that ceding the streets and public parks to the homeless entails.
In other words, you may have no choice about being homeless (and thus involuntarily homeless), but that does not mean you have the choice to live, sleep, and camp on public property.
A U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel heard these arguments and sided with the homeless advocates. In a 2-1 decision that the 9th Circuit later refused to hear en banc, the panel concluded that the city of Grants Pass violated the Eighth Amendment’s cruel or unusual punishments clause when it put in place ordinances discouraging the homeless from camping and sleeping on public property.
The panel held that “involuntarily homeless persons must have ‘somewhere’ to sleep and take rudimentary precautions (bedding) against the elements.”
This remarkable conclusion – that the homeless have a right to sleep on public property because they are “involuntarily” homeless – amounts to a finding that local governments like the one in Grants Pass, Oregon, owe the homeless (and all other Americans who make their way to Grants Pass, or San Francisco, or any city at all), as a matter of constitutional law, a public place to sleep.
H/T Fox News (read more at FoxNews.com)
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.