U.S. Supreme Court weighs constitutionality of fining homeless people who sleep outside
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday debated whether laws against homeless people for sleeping outside violate their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
The case pits three homeless people against the 40,000-population rural town of Grants Pass, Ore., at least 600 of whose residents have no place to live. Local advocates say the actual number is most likely twice that high, according to The Washington Post. At issue is whether local authorities can fine people for sleeping outside if they have nowhere else to go.
The justices heard arguments for more than two hours on Monday as some questioned whether judges were even the ones who should be deciding, and others emphasized that since sleeping is a biological necessity, such laws were akin to criminalizing breathing.
“Why would you think these nine people are the best people to judge and weigh those policy judgments?” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked the Biden administration’s lawyer, according to The Post.[Spoiler (click to open)]
The implications extend far beyond Grants Pass, which has no homeless shelter except for a 138-bed facility, the Gospel Rescue Mission, that imposes strict rules.
“Where do we put them if every city, every village, every town lacks compassion and passes a law identical to this?” asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “Where are they supposed to sleep? Are they supposed to kill themselves, not sleeping?”
Outside the courthouse, several hundred demonstrators rallied with chants and slogans like, “Housing, not handcuffs.”
With more than 650,000 homeless people nationwide and nearly half sleeping outside, the matter has become an issue across the United States. The Supreme Court case stems from a 2018 lawsuit filed by three homeless people against Grants Pass for imposing fines of $75 to $295 on people who sleep in public outdoor spaces such as parks and in parked cars.
Those who couldn’t pay risked jail time or being banned from a park entirely. The trio claim the law is “cruel and unusual punishment,” while residents feel they’ve lost use of their parks.
The case wended its way through lower courts, which struck down the ban, before arriving at the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hand down a decision in June.
The case pits three homeless people against the 40,000-population rural town of Grants Pass, Ore., at least 600 of whose residents have no place to live. Local advocates say the actual number is most likely twice that high, according to The Washington Post. At issue is whether local authorities can fine people for sleeping outside if they have nowhere else to go.
The justices heard arguments for more than two hours on Monday as some questioned whether judges were even the ones who should be deciding, and others emphasized that since sleeping is a biological necessity, such laws were akin to criminalizing breathing.
“Why would you think these nine people are the best people to judge and weigh those policy judgments?” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked the Biden administration’s lawyer, according to The Post.[Spoiler (click to open)]
The implications extend far beyond Grants Pass, which has no homeless shelter except for a 138-bed facility, the Gospel Rescue Mission, that imposes strict rules.
“Where do we put them if every city, every village, every town lacks compassion and passes a law identical to this?” asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “Where are they supposed to sleep? Are they supposed to kill themselves, not sleeping?”
Outside the courthouse, several hundred demonstrators rallied with chants and slogans like, “Housing, not handcuffs.”
With more than 650,000 homeless people nationwide and nearly half sleeping outside, the matter has become an issue across the United States. The Supreme Court case stems from a 2018 lawsuit filed by three homeless people against Grants Pass for imposing fines of $75 to $295 on people who sleep in public outdoor spaces such as parks and in parked cars.
Those who couldn’t pay risked jail time or being banned from a park entirely. The trio claim the law is “cruel and unusual punishment,” while residents feel they’ve lost use of their parks.
The case wended its way through lower courts, which struck down the ban, before arriving at the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hand down a decision in June.