
U.S. Supreme Court keeps ruling barring prosecution for sleeping in public - DoreenMichele
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-homelessness/u-s-supreme-court-leaves-in-place-ruling-barring-prosecution-of-homeless-idUSKBN1YK1EA
======
troydavis
I posted this in another comment
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21796211](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21796211)),
but the ruling is specific to sleep much more than homelessness, let alone
camping on streets indefinitely.

Here’s most of my other comment:

The decision was that because sleep - not camping, but sleep - is a biological
necessity, there must be a practical way for homeless people to obtain it.

If that method isn’t shelters (because they’re full or inaccessible), then
there needs to be places and/or times when sleeping is allowed and practical.
The justices explicitly noted that this doesn’t mean municipalities can’t
enact and enforce significant restrictions on when, where, and how (for
example, no multi-day camping or no erecting structures) this can happen,
including when no shelter beds are available. There needs to be a viable way
to obtain sleep, though, whatever that way is.

[https://sccinsight.com/2019/04/08/what-the-9th-circuit-
actua...](https://sccinsight.com/2019/04/08/what-the-9th-circuit-actually-
said-about-criminalizing-homelessness/) has an excellent unbiased explanation,
though the core part of the decision is not that long. Here’s the footnote
which explicitly carved out this stuff:

> Naturally, our holding does not cover individuals who do have access to
> adequate temporary shelter, whether because they have the means to pay for
> it or because it is realistically available to them for free, but who choose
> not to use it. Nor do we suggest that a jurisdiction with insufficient
> shelter can never criminalize the act of sleeping outside. Even where
> shelter is unavailable, an ordinance prohibiting sitting, lying, or sleeping
> outside at particular times or in particular locations might well be
> constitutionally permissible. See Jones, 444 F.3d at 1123. So, too, might an
> ordinance barring the obstruction of public rights of way or the erection of
> certain structures. Whether some other ordinance is consistent with the
> Eighth Amendment will depend, as here, on whether it punishes a person for
> lacking the means to live out the “universal and unavoidable consequences of
> being human” in the way the ordinance prescribes.

~~~
oasisbob
That SCC article is really helpful, thanks!

> The Ninth Circuit panel then walks through several important cases that
> touch on this question of what can be made criminal. Those cases highlight
> distinctions between criminalizing “status” and criminalizing “conduct,”
> beginning with a 1962 case, Robinson vs. California, in which the Supreme
> Court found that the State of California could not criminalize the state of
> being addicted to the use of narcotics (as opposed to the actual use of
> narcotics)

------
jdkee
We did a great disservice to the mentally ill when we closed (rather than
reform) our mental institutions. The mentally ill would greatly benefit from
compassionate custodial care. For those who merely make bad personal choices
then enforcement of no urban camping laws by disposing of unoccupied campsites
along with the availability of low cost simple barracks type shelters for
overnight use should ease the situation without resorting to arrests or fines.
Society can be firm and compassionate at the same time. The current situation
in some of our cities is intolerable to all concerned.

~~~
merpnderp
What option was there to reform? The Supreme Court said people who weren't a
danger to themselves or others couldn't be held against their will. I'm all
for trying to figure out how to help the mentally ill, but that often comes in
the form of treating chemical addiction, which seems to have a long term
success rate of around ~10%, a number so low that in a hierarchy of
responsible spending, treatment wouldn't make the top of the list.

~~~
asdff
Living on the street is a danger to yourself. Mental illness get worse without
treatment, and coupled with a life on the street without intervention, will
end up with your death.

------
Keverw
I wonder if this will effect van life. In some cities sleeping in your car is
illegal even if in a valid parking spot minding your own business. Some places
even illegal to take a break and sit on the ground. I think living in a van
would be cramped, but maybe a RV would be nice but watched some of the van
life channels and think it's insane sleeping in your van is a crime. I think
some cops want to ID people who live different lifestyles because maybe they
assume you are a criminal on the run for living in a van. But still insane you
could go to jail or get your car impounded for sleeping in a parking spot...
In some places sleeping on a bench too, putting people in Jail over sleeping
which is a needed human function.

Then many states won't let you have a license if you are homeless, unless you
get help from a shelter and also try to make it harder to vote too. So you
have to pretend you live with a relative or go to Texas or South Dakota to
setup a mail forwarder and declare domicile since they recognize full time
RVing. Plus heard some shelters won't help you if you still own a car, got to
sell it first to receive services.

I have heard though South Dakota only lets you vote for federal and state
elections though, not local(city and county) but not sure how true that is...
For example one of the counties doesn't have a "Wheel Tax", which would effect
people registered there if ever passed, so RVers would vote no of course on
it. Yet they say you can still be called for Jury Duty as mentioned on the
affidavit, but heard the popular county for mail forwarders exempt those
addresses, so you won't get picked in the first place but even if you do just
call and tell them you are traveling full time to be exempted... But kinda
interesting you are like a resident but not really a resident. I guess no
states really considered people could retire and RV full time or younger
people could live in a van and work remotely online.

I guess kinda the same with college though... If you lived in California but
your parents retired early and moved to Florida or Nevada, yet you wanted to
stay in California to go to school with your high school friends then
California would consider you a resident for DMV, taxes but no longer a
resident for tuition since they go by your parents domicile until a certain
age, yet until after a full year or two FL or NV wouldn't consider you a
resident for school either, so I guess you could technically not be a resident
of any state for tuition proposes.

~~~
throwawaysea
> In some cities sleeping in your car is illegal even if in a valid parking
> spot minding your own business.

It should be illegal. Parking spaces are by and large meant to primarily serve
the needs of legal, taxpaying residents. When they get taken over for use as
housing, it diminishes the ability for others to travel and visit
friends/family/businesses. And street parking is taken away from those who
live locally who may need to park overnight.

All this is still leaving aside the fact that it is super creepy to have
someone living out of an RV on your block, watching everyone's
arrival/departures, casing their joints. Especially because a number of these
RV dwellers are permanently-nomadic drug-addicts who engage in property crime
to fuel their habits.

No thanks.

~~~
daxorid
_Especially because a number of these RV dwellers are permanently-nomadic
drug-addicts who engage in property crime to fuel their habits._

Property crime is already a crime, hence the term. Assuming your stereotype is
accurate, the police will arrest them for their actual crimes soon enough.
Until then, the pre-crime of living in an RV isn't sufficient cause.

~~~
asdff
Property crime de facto is only a crime if you commit felony theft. Cops in CA
don't care if you have a pile of bike parts and pieces of rideshare scooters.

------
4ntonius8lock
The title is inaccurate and makes it sound like homeless can't be prosecuted
for any small or petty crime. It seems biased in making the ruling seem
ridiculous. That is not the case.

The ruling is hardly a huge win for civil liberties. It's pretty narrow and
specific. A better title would be:

"States can't jail people for sleeping in public if there's no homeless
shelters."

Of course such a title would seem reasonable and normal and wouldn't produce a
click-bait news title that stokes the flames of national division.

~~~
kmonsen
It is actually even narrower, "States can't jail people for sleeping in public
if there's no homeless shelters and they can prove they had no funds to
provide alternative arrangements."

If you can pay for a hotel room or other accommodation you the city/state can
make it illegal for you to sleep outside.

------
einpoklum
The US Supreme Court is infamous, especially in recent years, for favoring the
interests of the powerful, the moneyed and the landed over those of, well,
other people (see:
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices)).

So, at least we know there is some bar - albeit very low - beyond which
they're not willing to let local authorities victimize the poor. That is - you
are at least allowed to sleep outside on the cold hard floor. Thanks SCOTUS.

~~~
int_19h
Have you considered that it is rather the constitution and the laws that favor
the interests of the powerful, and the courts (by design) rule according to
the laws?

~~~
einpoklum
Well, yes, you're right that a lot of it is in the constitution and the laws -
but certainly not all of it. There is a vast space for interpretation.

~~~
int_19h
There is, but I'd rather the courts go with the most obvious interpretation of
the law, then start from a premise of what should be done (as they see it),
and then try to stretch the law to fit. Courts are not for making policy, and
when they're appropriated for that purpose, it quickly spirals out of control.

If the problem is with the laws and the executive policies - and it really is
- then let's fix those.

------
djsumdog
All the money spend to fighting for this legislation could have gone into
actually housing people; real permanent housing for those too poor.

Utah has shown that housing people first alleviates a lot of stress. It takes
away that fear of not having a basic, consistent place to sleep and be
somewhat secure. Cities that implement housing first programs save a lot of
money, as it's easier for those people to get to find work and get themselves
out of the system.

Will some people abuse it and stay in government housing forever? Sure. But
even with those people, municipalities still save money because a good chunk
of the people can build their way out once their basic needs are met.

~~~
gamblor956
All of the money would then be spent fighting the NIMBYs who would prevent any
homeless shelters from being built anywhere close to their neighborhoods...and
indeed several tens of millions have been spent in courtrooms fighting off
NIMBY lawsuits to the more than 2-dozen potential shelters that could have
been built since the passage of Measure H.

The fundamental failure of Measure H was that while there is the money to
build the necessary housing, and the general political will to build
_somewhere_....there is intense political opposition to any specific place
that gets proposed as the location for homeless or transitional housing.

~~~
malandrew
> All of the money would then be spent fighting the NIMBYs who would prevent
> any homeless shelters from being built anywhere close to their neighborhoods

If this is an expected outcome, I would consider it fiscally irresponsible to
propose building housing shelters in NIMBY neighborhoods and instead choose
other places where money won't be wasted on litigation. There's no good reason
for homeless shelters and other charitable services to be located on extremely
valuable real estate and in NIMBY neighborhoods.

~~~
tmh79
> There's no good reason for homeless shelters and other charitable services
> to be located on extremely valuable real estate and in NIMBY neighborhoods

There are tons of good reasons. The primary reason is that "place" is a huge
determination of societal outcomes for individuals. Homeless individuals in a
nicer neighborhood will on average have better outcomes (rehabilitation,
returning to normal life, seeking mental health treatment) than homeless
individuals in rougher neighborhoods.

~~~
malandrew
I never said anything about putting them in rougher neighborhoods. You're
projecting.

There are plenty of places in the US where you're less likely to meet costly
legal resistance where people can get rehabilitation, returning to normal life
and seeking mental health treatment.

Furthermore, even those services, such as rehabilitation and mental health
treatment should be moved to lower cost of living markets where each dollar
goes much further than in San Francisco. The salary of a social worker in SF
is approximately 30% higher than some place like Dallas, TX.

------
munk-a
A nice hidden gem in this ruling - the supreme court didn't refute or counter
the 9th circuit court's statement to the effect of

> The 9th Circuit noted that those facilities could still refuse to shelter
> homeless people who exceed limits of the number of days they can stay or who
> object to mandatory religious programs.

It'd be quite problematic for folks to be jailed for refusing mandatory
religious programs - even if those people were homeless. I'm happy to see that
this group of people managed to stand up for their rights against Boise - and
maybe the city just needs to put out a bit more money toward health and safety
by supplying adequate secular shelter options[1].

1\. As an aside, I really dislike that so many of the US domestic charities
are religiously driven.

~~~
reaperducer
_As an aside, I really dislike that so many of the US domestic charities are
religiously driven._

I guess another way of looking at it is why aren't there more atheist
charities? What is it about religion that makes people help other people so
much more?

~~~
Konnstann
Most religions are centered around the afterlife, and you can't take anything
with you when you die. The dogma of most religions states that charity is good
and will help get you into whatever version of heaven they believe in, hence
charity.

~~~
nsxwolf
This is the hypothesis that religious people are gullible, stupid, and selfish
- only concerned with the threat of their own eternal torment in hell, not
with the welfare of others.

It's offensive.

~~~
Konnstann
This is the hypothesis that charitableness can be modeled on a normal
distribution, but the additional incentive of religion shifts the mean of that
distribution higher for religious people than atheists. It's not offensive to
believe there is a subset of the population that is influenced by the dogma of
the church to do things they wouldn't already do.

------
hprotagonist
at least we're still a little step above this:

 _" In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep
under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."_ \-- Anatole
France

~~~
reaperducer
Las Vegas has the same law as Boise (the subject of this ruling).

[https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-
government/l...](https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-
government/las-vegas/las-vegas-passes-controversial-homeless-camping-
ban-1887290/)

Hopefully this will convince cities that putting people in jail is not a
solution to homelessness.

~~~
enjo
What is the solution then? All I know is my city (Denver) is being destroyed
by it. I have a disgusting camp on my block full of trash, puke, and needles.
I can no longer actually use of of the public spaces my tax dollars pay for
because we’ve fully given them over to the homeless.

Everyone will post that article about Utah but Denver instituted the very same
program at the very same time with far less effective results.

I try really hard to maintain my compassion but I see a problem with seemingly
no solution and am just not sure what we can even do at this point.

~~~
Frondo
I used to live in a city (Portland) with a pretty sizeable homeless
population. Last time I went back there, I was _astonished_ at how the
homeless population has grown. Tent cities everywhere. It really is shocking.

I want to remain compassionate, too. What it comes down to for me is, I can't
be too angry at the people living in these tent cities -- that's no one's
first choice (barring, of course, that in any population some very small
percentage of people want an itinerant life like that; certainly not this
many).

So I wondered, how has society broken down that this is it for so many people?
How has the city, the state, and the federal government skewed the great
societal playing field, that so many people must live like this? The safety
net has a lot of holes, more than it seems like it used to, and who gains? For
whom is this status quo the preferred one?

I don't have answers (outside the usual economic stuff like, real wages
haven't risen alongside the big three economic sinks for most people,
education, health care, housing; a lot of attainable jobs have been sent
overseas or replaced by technology), but where my compassion goes is, it can't
be this many people's bad choices that got them here -- or, if it is, how has
society been restructured that bad choices get people here, where falling this
far didn't used to be such a readily available option?

I do know that, doing the same thing we've been doing isn't going to get
things to be better. And, intuitively, I don't think that smashing up tent
cities (like they frequently do in Portland, in "sweeps") or jailing these
people is going to solve the problem.

I like what Utah has done. It's unfortunate that that hasn't worked in Denver;
I wonder why. I don't like what Portland does (sweeps, moving people from
encampment to encampment, tossing out what little stability and possessions
they have). But I don't know what else we could do, locally or nationally.

Definitely open to hearing options.

------
turk73
My wife works at a library. The homeless are a problem that the city and the
county refuse to address because the library is "open to all" but does bad
behavior have to be acceptable? Public drunkenness, abuse of other patrons,
messes in the restrooms, smelly, nasty people sleeping in the chairs, just
constant problems. They basically turn the library into a place nobody wants
to visit in order to not offend a particular demographic. That's not fair to
the community any more than the opposite is.

I prefer the old days when the cops would show up and roust them out of there
and tell them to go be a pain in the ass someplace else. I feel the same way
about crime, too--the cops should be busting heads, instead we have muggers at
the mall parking lot because "racism."

~~~
downerending
This has happened in my small city as well. The main library is no longer a
safe place to visit, and has become a homeless shelter of sorts (with the
accompanying smells and infestations).

The good news, I guess, is that kids now have the Internet to learn from, and
libraries are no longer a foundation of civic life.

~~~
Pfhreak
> The main library is no longer a safe place to visit,

Is this born out by an increase in crime at the library? Or are you just not
feeling safe?

~~~
downerending
It's my feeling and a widely felt sentiment among the locals. Certainly the
surrounding 300m area is a higher-crime area.

A few weeks ago, I had to walk through and witnessed a woman pull down her
pants and defecate on the sidewalk, about 50m from the library entrance. This
wasn't in an alley or something--it was the main sidewalk, easily visible from
the library entrance.

I would not bring kids there.

------
hirundo
Congrats to the Supremes for doing justice and compassion by doing nothing.

~~~
AaronFriel
There was no circuit split here and the status quo did not involve any
pressing constitutional controversy or original jurisdiction, so it was
unlikely they would grant cert (take the case). The law as it stood was
protecting a right that may or may not exist, but the court is unlikely to
weigh in on lower courts _creating_ rights or interpretations of rights that
enable individuals.

Had the lower court's decision involved criminalizing hundreds of thousands of
people's daily lives, that might create the sort of controversy the court
would consider vital to resolve.

------
Bostonian
I don't the think ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" was meant to cover
this:

"Each had been fined between $25 and $75. Five of them were sentenced to time
served, while one twice served a single day in jail."

~~~
reaperducer
When you have $0, a $25 fine is cruel and unusual. Especially since not paying
that fine that you can't pay means you go to jail.

~~~
dv_dt
And tragically, we seem to always fund space in jails ahead of space in
homeless shelters.

------
peterwwillis
_> the formation of encampments that can lead to unsanitary conditions and
crimes such as drug dealing and gang activity_

Yes indeed, because of those ruthless gangs of homeless drug dealers, what
with their effective means to procure and transport expensive products without
being noticed, and their total lack of any profit from said enterprise keeping
them homeless.

~~~
cgriswald
You’re railing against a straw man. Homeless people are vulnerable and many
have drug habits. How could a homeless encampment NOT draw drug dealers and
related criminal activity?

~~~
peterwwillis
I'm hardly railing. In response to your question, they aren't a steady source
of income for drug dealers, and drug dealers aren't just wandering the streets
trying to sell drugs to people with no money. They stay on their turf and sell
to people who come to them. And "related criminal activity"? Homeless people
aren't criminal masterminds who collect all the city's neer-do-wells. They're
just broken down people who need a place to lie down.

~~~
cgriswald
I don’t think you have any experience with one of these encampments. They
bring crime, perpetrated both on and by homeless people. These are facts. No
one has implied that homeless people are criminal masterminds operating vast
syndicates.

~~~
peterwwillis
> They bring crime, perpetrated both on and by homeless people. These are
> facts.

There is crime anywhere there are lots of people who have needs they can't
meet, but even so, the crime rates aren't significant compared to other
populations. Analysis such as this one by the Guardian show that the existence
of homeless encampments don't have a direct link to crime rates:
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/23/homeless-
vil...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/23/homeless-villages-
crime-rate-seattle-portland) Sometimes crime rates may increase slightly, and
sometimes they _decrease_ slightly. Reports like these go back decades:
[http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=200...](http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20040521&slug=tentcrime20m)

~~~
cgriswald
You objected to the city of Boise talking about crime related to these
encampments. Now you’ve accepted the crime happens, but you’re moving the
goalposts to say the crime isn’t any worse. The crime is happening. A lot of
the crime that occurs is against homeless people. It often goes unreported. It
won’t affect crime rates. For a variety of other reasons it is not, in the
general sense, a simple thing to measure. In no case are you going to convince
the people with actual experiences that their experiences didn’t happen by
waving a study at them.

------
zer0faith
"The justices left in place a 2018 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals that fining or jailing homeless people for staying
outside or in unauthorized places if a bed at an emergency shelter is not
available is unconstitutional"

It is no secret that San Francisco has a homelessness crisis and if they can't
prosecute how are they expected to clean up their city of homeless people?

 __Edit: This is a legit question why all the down votes?

~~~
gamblor956
We could do what the Midwest does with their homeless, but in reverse: we buy
them bus tickets back to home and let their home states deal with it.

I don't know what the situation is like in SF or Boise, but in LA more than
half of the homeless aren't even from California. They're just here because
they were given a free bus ticket and told they would get free food and drugs
and good weather if they rode all the way to the end.

~~~
reaperducer
_We could do what the Midwest does with their homeless, but in reverse: we buy
them bus tickets back to home and let their home states deal with it._

Expect a lawsuit.

Both Newark and Elizabeth, New Jersey are suing New York City for busing its
homeless over the Hudson River.

California has a long history of doing the same. It wasn't that many years ago
that Los Angeles agreed to stop busing its homeless people to Nevada.

~~~
gamblor956
_California has a long history of doing the same. It wasn 't that many years
ago that Los Angeles agreed to stop busing its homeless people to Nevada. _

This is blatantly false. SF and LA were sending the homeless _back_ to their
cities of origin. Their is a great deal of reporting on this in the NYT and
LAT. (See, e.g., [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/us/homeless-busing-
seattl...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/us/homeless-busing-seattle-san-
francisco.html))

Texas and the Midwest represent the biggest non-local sources of the homeless
in Southern California. Combined, the Midwestern states generate more of LA's
homeless than California itself. It was the openly stated policy of Texas for
more than a decade to deal with the homeless by buying them tickets to Los
Angeles, and it is still their official (but unstated) policy with respect to
addressing homelessness. _Their governor has admitted as much on television._

------
gamblor956
SCOTUS and 9th Circuit judges would feel (and rule) quite differently if they
were confronted with unbathed, tweaking drug users jerking off in front of
them and their children every morning, refusing treatment and shelter because
they'd rather be high than housed.

The best solution is probably to redirect a number of the homeless to their
tony neighborhoods. We would likely have rulings overturning shit decisions
like this one in days.

~~~
seriesf
There are other laws against those things. We don't need one against sleeping
outside.

~~~
gamblor956
In its infinite wisdom, the 9th Circuit has also decreed that we cannot force
homeless drug users into rehab against their will, or to commit mentally ill
homeless for treatment unless they represent an immediate danger to themselves
or others...though the first sign of that is usually when they kill themselves
or some innocent bystander, like has happened a dozen times in the past year.

~~~
e1ven
You're talking about people.

Regardless of if they are annoying you, you shouldn't try to treat this like a
pest-control situation.

I urge you to re-think your position, with the understanding that they are
real in the same way you are.

~~~
enjo
They’re often people who simply refuse to participate in society in a very
basic way... which is fine but I also think that I have some right to personal
safety as much as they do. LA has experienced Typhus outbreaks in their
homeless camps. They absolutely trash huge sections of most cities. Crime and
disease are a huge issue in those populations.

Homelessness should be combated with compassion and understanding. We have a
responsibility to provide shelter, food, and ways out of homelessness for
people.

Vagrancy on the other hand should be met with something else. We have the
right as a society to ensure that our cities and public spaces work for
everyone.

------
throwawaysea
This is a terrible decision by the Supreme Court. People do not have a right
to sleep wherever they want, whenever they want. If they cannot join a
community and be a productive/contributing member, there has to be a
disincentive for that. Right now, many cities like Seattle and SF have law-
abiding tax-paying residents who have to see their beautiful cities ruined by
tents/trash/needles, put up with unsafe conditions, see their property value
diminish, and amenities take over (like parks with tents).

No one has a right to live where they want at whatever price point they want.
This is the strongest economy of all time. Unemployment is at an all time low.
And there are many locations where someone can do _a_ job (not necessarily the
one they want) and earn a living, instead of picking the more desirable
locations. I believe every jurisdiction should be able to set its own rules
governing where/when people can sleep. And taxpayers should not be obligated
to pay for someone else's life due to their lack of personal responsibility.

The refusal to hear the challenge here is simply enabling the permanently-
nomadic to take over land they do not own at no cost and with no consequence.

~~~
greglindahl
> People do not have a right to sleep wherever they want, whenever they want.

Indeed, and this court ruling doesn't say that. The limitations of the circuit
court ruling are described in the article, which I'm sure you've read. Second
paragraph.

