A homeless person is seen near a subway station in New York City on February 21, 2022.
Someone Tell the US Supreme Court: Housing Is a Human Right!
Criminalization is not a legitimate tool to combat houselessness as it subjects people to cruel treatment and arbitrary arrest, punishing them for simply existing in public space because they lack housing.
The United States Supreme Court decision last month in Grants Pass v. Johnson gives local governments across the country the authority to ticket, arrest, and punish unhoused people for simply existing in public spaces. The ruling undermines the right to adequate housing in the U.S.; it is also profoundly cruel and risks an increase in ineffective criminalization.
In its ruling, the court overturned decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this case and in Martin v. Boise, which limited punishment if there was no other place for a person legally to go or if there was no shelter available. The court said that criminalizing a person for their unhoused status does not violate the prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments” in the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Criminalization causes suffering, but does nothing to house people.
The Supreme Court had previously held that authorities may not punish a person based solely on their status, as opposed to their conduct. The Grants Pass majority did not explicitly overrule that precedent, but said the Eighth Amendment only applies to the form of punishment—not the outlawed conduct or status—and that state governments may choose to criminalize whatever they want without violating the Constitution. This ruling opens the door to further punishment of poverty and other statuses.
This decision gives local and state governments a green light to enact and enforce laws banning unhoused people from public spaces, regardless of whether adequate housing or shelter is available to them. States across the country, including Georgia, Texas, Florida, and others, have already passed such laws. A recent study found that the majority of cities examined already had such laws in place.
In Los Angeles, previously limited by the Ninth Circuit precedent, city councilmembers have already begun to explore options to further criminalize unhoused people in light of the Supreme Court decision. Other jurisdictions will likely race to take similar steps, not wanting to be the only areas in their region where unhoused people can safely stay.
Criminalization is not, as the majority opinion claims, a legitimate tool to combat houselessness as it subjects people to cruel treatment and arbitrary arrest, punishing them for simply existing in public space because they lack housing. Criminalization is also proven to be ineffective. It forces unhoused people to hide from view, separating them from helpful services. Criminalization causes suffering, but does nothing to house people. This ruling allows authorities to ignore real solutions, especially providing and preserving affordable housing, because they can simply chase unhoused people away with the threat of criminal enforcement.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
The United States Supreme Court decision last month in Grants Pass v. Johnson gives local governments across the country the authority to ticket, arrest, and punish unhoused people for simply existing in public spaces. The ruling undermines the right to adequate housing in the U.S.; it is also profoundly cruel and risks an increase in ineffective criminalization.
In its ruling, the court overturned decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this case and in Martin v. Boise, which limited punishment if there was no other place for a person legally to go or if there was no shelter available. The court said that criminalizing a person for their unhoused status does not violate the prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments” in the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Criminalization causes suffering, but does nothing to house people.
The Supreme Court had previously held that authorities may not punish a person based solely on their status, as opposed to their conduct. The Grants Pass majority did not explicitly overrule that precedent, but said the Eighth Amendment only applies to the form of punishment—not the outlawed conduct or status—and that state governments may choose to criminalize whatever they want without violating the Constitution. This ruling opens the door to further punishment of poverty and other statuses.
This decision gives local and state governments a green light to enact and enforce laws banning unhoused people from public spaces, regardless of whether adequate housing or shelter is available to them. States across the country, including Georgia, Texas, Florida, and others, have already passed such laws. A recent study found that the majority of cities examined already had such laws in place.
In Los Angeles, previously limited by the Ninth Circuit precedent, city councilmembers have already begun to explore options to further criminalize unhoused people in light of the Supreme Court decision. Other jurisdictions will likely race to take similar steps, not wanting to be the only areas in their region where unhoused people can safely stay.
Criminalization is not, as the majority opinion claims, a legitimate tool to combat houselessness as it subjects people to cruel treatment and arbitrary arrest, punishing them for simply existing in public space because they lack housing. Criminalization is also proven to be ineffective. It forces unhoused people to hide from view, separating them from helpful services. Criminalization causes suffering, but does nothing to house people. This ruling allows authorities to ignore real solutions, especially providing and preserving affordable housing, because they can simply chase unhoused people away with the threat of criminal enforcement.
- Supreme Court Ruling Will Not Solve America's Housing Crisis ›
- Working Class Pay the Price When Supreme Court Justice Secretly Pal Around With Right-Wing Billionaires ›
- Don’t Let the Supreme Court Get the Last Word on Housing Justice ›
- Liberal Justices Grill Attorney in Supreme Court Case on Criminalizing Homelessness ›
- Opinion | We Need a Movement to Counter the Supreme Court’s Cruelty to Homeless People | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | A Belly Laugh About the Homeless | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | US Supreme Court Justices Should Be Deadly Ashamed for What They Have Done to Homeless People | Common Dreams ›
The United States Supreme Court decision last month in Grants Pass v. Johnson gives local governments across the country the authority to ticket, arrest, and punish unhoused people for simply existing in public spaces. The ruling undermines the right to adequate housing in the U.S.; it is also profoundly cruel and risks an increase in ineffective criminalization.
In its ruling, the court overturned decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this case and in Martin v. Boise, which limited punishment if there was no other place for a person legally to go or if there was no shelter available. The court said that criminalizing a person for their unhoused status does not violate the prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments” in the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Criminalization causes suffering, but does nothing to house people.
The Supreme Court had previously held that authorities may not punish a person based solely on their status, as opposed to their conduct. The Grants Pass majority did not explicitly overrule that precedent, but said the Eighth Amendment only applies to the form of punishment—not the outlawed conduct or status—and that state governments may choose to criminalize whatever they want without violating the Constitution. This ruling opens the door to further punishment of poverty and other statuses.
This decision gives local and state governments a green light to enact and enforce laws banning unhoused people from public spaces, regardless of whether adequate housing or shelter is available to them. States across the country, including Georgia, Texas, Florida, and others, have already passed such laws. A recent study found that the majority of cities examined already had such laws in place.
In Los Angeles, previously limited by the Ninth Circuit precedent, city councilmembers have already begun to explore options to further criminalize unhoused people in light of the Supreme Court decision. Other jurisdictions will likely race to take similar steps, not wanting to be the only areas in their region where unhoused people can safely stay.
Criminalization is not, as the majority opinion claims, a legitimate tool to combat houselessness as it subjects people to cruel treatment and arbitrary arrest, punishing them for simply existing in public space because they lack housing. Criminalization is also proven to be ineffective. It forces unhoused people to hide from view, separating them from helpful services. Criminalization causes suffering, but does nothing to house people. This ruling allows authorities to ignore real solutions, especially providing and preserving affordable housing, because they can simply chase unhoused people away with the threat of criminal enforcement.
- Supreme Court Ruling Will Not Solve America's Housing Crisis ›
- Working Class Pay the Price When Supreme Court Justice Secretly Pal Around With Right-Wing Billionaires ›
- Don’t Let the Supreme Court Get the Last Word on Housing Justice ›
- Liberal Justices Grill Attorney in Supreme Court Case on Criminalizing Homelessness ›
- Opinion | We Need a Movement to Counter the Supreme Court’s Cruelty to Homeless People | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | A Belly Laugh About the Homeless | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | US Supreme Court Justices Should Be Deadly Ashamed for What They Have Done to Homeless People | Common Dreams ›