SCOTUS Hears Grants Pass Homelessness Case

0:00

/1861

1×

Facts

• The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Monday heard arguments in City of Grants Pass, Ore. v. Johnson, a case which calls into question municipalities' right to ban sleeping in public during the US' homelessness crisis. A reported 256K people were without shelter in the US on a given night last year.¹
• In 2018, representatives for homeless residents of Grants Pass challenged the legality of a series of ordinances the town of around 40K in southern Oregon began to intensely enforce in 2013 in response to complaints from residents about people sleeping and defecating in public.²
• The plaintiffs claimed the town violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, but Grand Pass disagreed on the ground that that amendment deals with punishments, not laws.²
• The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs. But in Monday's arguments, the conservative-majority SCOTUS seemed to be leaning toward a narrow ruling for the city along ideological lines.³
• During more than two hours of arguments, the conservative judges questioned how far a city could go with its restrictions on the homeless, and whether federal courts should be considering local policies instead of elected officials in the municipalities.⁴
• The liberal judges' questioning centered around where people who could face punishment for sleeping on the street would go if these laws continued to be in effect.⁴

Sources: ¹BBC News, ²New York Times, ³Associated Press and ⁴CBS.

Narratives

• Left narrative, as provided by NPR Online News. The conservative justices unfortunately seem inclined to side with the city in this case. Their questions seemed unsympathetic to the people involved and they seemed inclined to let Grants Pass do what it wants, as long as it doesn't go too far. But the liberal justices rightly were more concerned that Grants Pass and every city could begin a banishment race to push homeless people out of their jurisdictions.
• Right narrative, as provided by PJ Media. The conservative justices aren't being cold-hearted, they're being realistic. The lower-court ruling limiting how cities could manage their homeless problem wreaked havoc on the municipalities and made it unsafe for people to enjoy public recreation spaces. It's possible to be sympathetic to the homeless while also realizing that permitting bad behavior is harmful to society.

Predictions