Arr! 'Tis a jolly talk o' th' Supreme Court case that may lend a hand t' cities in mopin' up th' scurvy homeless bilge rats.
2024-01-18
Arrr, me hearties! Ye scurvy dogs from the 9th Circuit have ruled that them landlubber homeless folks can sleep on public property, claimin' it be their "involuntary" fate. But fear not, me mateys, as the case be sailin' towards the Supreme Court, where justice shall prevail, or else this old pirate's name ain't Cap'n Crunch!
The homelessness crisis in America has led to a debate about the role of government and constitutional rights. The increasing number of homeless individuals living in tents and makeshift camps has raised concerns about drug and alcohol addiction, mental illness, and the high cost of housing. Cities and homeless advocates have differing opinions on how to address the issue. The Supreme Court is now reviewing a case that questions whether the Constitution requires the government to proactively do something for each individual or simply outlines what it cannot do to them.Homeless advocates argue that cities are punishing the homeless for simply existing, while cities claim they must maintain order and protect public and private property. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with homeless advocates, stating that cities violated the Eighth Amendment by discouraging the homeless from camping on public property. This decision suggests that local governments are obligated to provide a public place to sleep for the involuntarily homeless.
However, this conclusion challenges the concept of negative rights, which state what the government cannot do to individuals. The Supreme Court has consistently rejected the idea that the Constitution requires the government to take action. The court's decision in this case could potentially change how the Constitution protects our rights.
While it is difficult to predict the Supreme Court outcome, it is unlikely that they will uphold the 9th Circuit's conclusion. The Constitution primarily focuses on protecting individuals from government oppression, rather than securing basic governmental services. Therefore, it is expected that the court will reverse the 9th Circuit's decision and not recognize the right to a public place to sleep for the homeless.
In the meantime, some states, like Oregon, have passed laws giving homeless individuals the right to sue their communities if local ordinances addressing their presence on public property are not considered "objectively reasonable." This provides an alternative avenue for homeless individuals to demand government assistance.
Overall, the Supreme Court's decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson will have significant implications for how constitutional rights are interpreted in relation to the homelessness crisis.