Supreme Court Rules Cities Can Enforce Bans on Homeless Encampments
Submitted by MAGA
Posted 2 days ago
In a significant victory for cities grappling with homelessness, the Supreme Court has ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless encampments. The 6-3 decision overturned a ruling by a San Francisco-based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans violate the Eighth Amendment.
The case was brought by three homeless people who sued Grants Pass, Ore., after the city started strictly enforcing measures that outlawed sleeping or camping in public spaces like parks and in parked cars. The plaintiffs argued that the city was punishing them "based on their status of being involuntarily homeless" in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said the problem of homelessness is complex, but the Eighth Amendment "does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy."
The ruling is a major win for cities that have been struggling to manage homeless encampments in public spaces. In California, which is home to one-third of the country’s homeless population, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said the decision gives state and local officials authority to clear "unsafe encampments" from the streets.
"This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years," Newsom said.
The ruling was not without controversy, however. Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her searing dissent from the bench, calling such laws "unconscionable and unconstitutional."
"Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime," Sotomayor said, who was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Despite the dissent, the ruling is a significant victory for cities that have been struggling to manage homeless encampments in public spaces. The decision will give cities some tools to be able to manage the issue better, allowing them to clean and maintain parks and sidewalks so that other citizens can traverse and use the space.
In other news, the Supreme Court has limited the scope of a federal obstruction statute used by prosecutors to charge more than 300 defendants involved with the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, including former President Donald Trump. The court ruled that the government must show in those cases that the alleged obstruction related to "impairing the availability or integrity" of "records, documents, or objects" used in the disrupted proceeding.
The decision was a partial victory for former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer, who was among the rioters on Jan. 6 and challenged the obstruction charge. However, the court made clear that prosecutors could retain the obstruction charges if more properly framed and supported by evidence that the defendants' actions involved documents of some kind.
The ruling could have implications for special counsel Jack Smith's election interference case against Trump. Two of the four charges involve the same obstruction statute used against Fischer.
Finally, in an interesting twist, a city councilor in Westminster, Colo., wants the city to let Concealed Carry Weapon Permit holders into city buildings, despite a new state law that prohibits guns at or near Colorado’s town halls. Councilor David DeMott is proposing the city council pass an ordinance allowing lawful active Concealed Carry Weapon Permit holders to carry their concealed carry weapons on city property.
DeMott argues that state law gives communities leeway to determine how to handle those with CCWs, so it's not quite the same thing as trying to ignore preemption in states that have it. However, the city's staff seems to think otherwise based on their understanding of the law. The ordinance will now be considered at the council’s July 22 meeting.
Sources:
hotair.com
abcnews.go.com
bearingarms.com
The case was brought by three homeless people who sued Grants Pass, Ore., after the city started strictly enforcing measures that outlawed sleeping or camping in public spaces like parks and in parked cars. The plaintiffs argued that the city was punishing them "based on their status of being involuntarily homeless" in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said the problem of homelessness is complex, but the Eighth Amendment "does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy."
The ruling is a major win for cities that have been struggling to manage homeless encampments in public spaces. In California, which is home to one-third of the country’s homeless population, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said the decision gives state and local officials authority to clear "unsafe encampments" from the streets.
"This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years," Newsom said.
The ruling was not without controversy, however. Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her searing dissent from the bench, calling such laws "unconscionable and unconstitutional."
"Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime," Sotomayor said, who was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Despite the dissent, the ruling is a significant victory for cities that have been struggling to manage homeless encampments in public spaces. The decision will give cities some tools to be able to manage the issue better, allowing them to clean and maintain parks and sidewalks so that other citizens can traverse and use the space.
In other news, the Supreme Court has limited the scope of a federal obstruction statute used by prosecutors to charge more than 300 defendants involved with the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, including former President Donald Trump. The court ruled that the government must show in those cases that the alleged obstruction related to "impairing the availability or integrity" of "records, documents, or objects" used in the disrupted proceeding.
The decision was a partial victory for former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer, who was among the rioters on Jan. 6 and challenged the obstruction charge. However, the court made clear that prosecutors could retain the obstruction charges if more properly framed and supported by evidence that the defendants' actions involved documents of some kind.
The ruling could have implications for special counsel Jack Smith's election interference case against Trump. Two of the four charges involve the same obstruction statute used against Fischer.
Finally, in an interesting twist, a city councilor in Westminster, Colo., wants the city to let Concealed Carry Weapon Permit holders into city buildings, despite a new state law that prohibits guns at or near Colorado’s town halls. Councilor David DeMott is proposing the city council pass an ordinance allowing lawful active Concealed Carry Weapon Permit holders to carry their concealed carry weapons on city property.
DeMott argues that state law gives communities leeway to determine how to handle those with CCWs, so it's not quite the same thing as trying to ignore preemption in states that have it. However, the city's staff seems to think otherwise based on their understanding of the law. The ordinance will now be considered at the council’s July 22 meeting.
Sources:
hotair.com
abcnews.go.com
bearingarms.com
Latest News
