A Supreme Court ruling has ignited the debate. As has become customary in the United States in recent years, decisions by the country’s highest court have defined some of the most heated discussions at a social level, from abortion, with the revocation of the federal right of women to terminate a pregnancy, to affirmative action or immigration and deportations. On June 28, it was the turn of the situation of the homeless, an already endemic problem that in 2023 reached its historical maximum, with more than 650,000 people living on the streets, an increase of 12% compared to the previous year.
The Supreme Court, which voted along clear ideological lines — the six conservative judges, three appointed by Donald Trump, against the three progressive judges — ruled that local governments could impose laws prohibiting sleeping on the streets, in tents or outdoors, and fine or even arrest people who did not comply. Since then, from California, the state with the largest homeless population with 180,000, to Florida, on the other side of the country, the issue has landed with force and measures have begun to be adopted that, despite having been declared permitted by law, have generated controversy and even confrontations between administrations.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was the result of a petition by the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, to review a 2018 ruling by a lower court that limited the ability of cities to respond to the growing homelessness problem with forced evictions. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the court’s conservative majority, said the halted Grants Pass ordinance criminalizing sleeping or camping in public spaces did not violate the Constitution. Under his reading, it criminalizes not being homeless, but camping in certain places. “It makes no difference whether the defendant is a homeless person, a backpacker on vacation, or a student leaving his dorm room to camp in protest on the grounds of a municipal building,” he argued.
On the other side, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that the decision would leave society’s most vulnerable people with even fewer protections. “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime… For some people, sleeping outside is their only option,” Sotomayor said, adding that imposing fines and even prison time for “sleeping anywhere in public at any time, including in their cars, if they use a blanket or a rolled-up T-shirt as a pillow” essentially punishes homelessness. “It is inconsolable and unconstitutional,” she said in her remarks from her bench, a sign of the deep dissent.
Despite the dissent within the Supreme Court, the decision is final and was in fact very welcomed especially by California, one of the most progressive states in the country. On July 25, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order to remove homeless encampments, which have become part of the landscape in cities such as Los Angeles or San Francisco, throughout the State. decree directs state agencies to adopt “humane and dignified policies,” including requiring homeless people to be notified before their tents are removed from public streets. While the order cannot force cities and counties to take action, it does allow them to pause millions in funding transfers as a pressure measure.
It is the next step in a crusade against one of the state’s main problems. Since 2021, authorities have removed 11,000 camps and collected dozens of tons of trash on state roads. The new executive order prioritizes the dismantling of camps that “represent a risk to the life, health and safety” of communities. By law, authorities will keep the collected property and objects for 60 days to see if anyone claims them.
In San Francisco, where the problem has been ongoing for decades without a solution, the order was greeted with enthusiasm. In this bastion of American progressivism, Democratic Mayor London Breed has embraced the powers granted to her by the Supreme Court decision and Newsom’s order. Citizens can no longer tolerate the encampments that are becoming practically permanent, the open drug use in them and the feeling of insecurity that it generates: the issue is the most pressing question for about half of the city’s residents.
In recent days, Breed has ordered police to fine homeless people who refuse shelter, and even use the threat of arrest as well. With her re-election on the line in November’s election, the mayor has promised to “clean up” the city and deliver results within weeks.
However, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass was quick to say she would not follow Governor Newsom’s directive, as her city — home to the infamous Skid Row, a downtown neighborhood that is estimated to have an estimated 4,400 homeless people and has had a homeless population since the 1930s — has seen positive results from its own program to deal with the homeless situation. homeless. For the first time in years, Los Angeles will slightly reduce the number of people experiencing homelessness from 2023 to 2024 with a strategy that involves moving them into motels or shelters. “This ruling should not be used as an excuse for cities across the country to try to arrest their way out of this problem, or hide the homeless crisis in neighboring cities or in jail,” Mayor Bass said. “The only way to address this crisis is by bringing people in with housing and supportive services.”
Following the ruling, the debate has revolved around the balance between enforcing existing or new laws prohibiting camping and providing support services to facilitate access to housing. Some experts believe that one of the most efficient responses to this problem is precisely the construction of affordable housing, a very scarce commodity today. Logic dictates that once they are placed under a permanent roof, the mental health or drug addiction problems that often accompany these individuals will be easier to address.
According to conservative critics, this has not worked. Landmark legislation drafted by the Cicero Institute, a Texas think tank, has provided the basis for new laws in Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma and other red states that have cracked down on encampments and reversed an approach that prioritized housing people. Instead, they advocate detaining and diagnosing each case so that specific priority solutions can be offered, such as access to employment, drug treatment, mental health care or, simply, housing.
In Ron DeSantis’ Florida, a ban on sleeping in public specifically targeting homeless people will go into effect in October. In Miami Beach, a very similar rule is already in place and will be enforced more intensively in August. The rule stipulates 60 days in jail and a $500 fine for refusing a bed in a shelter.
There is no doubt that the Supreme Court’s decision has emboldened those who advocate for a tough approach to a situation that is intimately linked to the opioid crisis and the epidemic of serious mental health problems. Still, the Court’s order leaves civil protections intact by prohibiting excessive fines and violations of due process. In fact, local governments can be sued, which is precisely what happened in Spokane, Oregon, last Thursday. The plaintiffs, a local organization that serves homeless people and two individuals who have lived this reality, one of whom is still homeless, claim that the regulations imposed by the authorities “criminalize homelessness.” The Supreme Court’s decision may be final, but the debate is only just beginning.
#homeless #illegal #heated #debate #countrys #homeless