New interpretation of law requires government to show impairment or attempt to impair availability or integrity of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding
Ruling overturns 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council
Supreme Court allows cities to enact stricter homeless camping laws
In a landmark decision on June 28, the Supreme Court ruled that camping ban laws restricting the homeless from sleeping on public property do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling effectively gives the green light to other cities struggling with rising homelessness to enact similar restrictive laws targeting outdoor camping. The court overruled its 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which held that courts should defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. In a case involving a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the Capitol on January 6, 2021, the court ruled that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired or attempted to impair the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding. The case is now returned to the lower court to determine whether the indictment can still stand in light of this new and narrower interpretation.
The Supreme Court allows cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places.
Homelessness in the United States grew 12% last year to its highest reported level.
Accuracy
The Supreme Court allows cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside.
In a 6-3 decision, the high court reversed a ruling by a San Francisco-based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans violate the Eighth Amendment.
Homeless advocates argue that allowing cities to punish people for something they can’t control, like homelessness, is cruel and unusual.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting and emotional manipulation. The author quotes Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent stating 'Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,' but fails to mention that the majority opinion acknowledges this as well and suggests that people who have no choice but to sleep outdoors could raise it as a 'necessity defense.' This omission creates an emotional appeal for the reader to sympathize with those who are homeless and sleeping outside. Additionally, the article states 'Homelessness is a reality for so many Americans,' implying that the issue is hopeless and beyond solution, which can manipulate emotions by creating a sense of helplessness. The author also selectively reports on cities' arguments for enforcing camping bans without mentioning their concerns about managing encampments in public spaces.
Homelessness is a reality for so many Americans.
The case comes from the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, which appealed a ruling striking down local ordinances that fined people for sleeping outside after tents began crowding public parks.
Fallacies
(80%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion that 'a handful of federal judges cannot begin to 'match' the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding 'how best to handle' homelessness.' This statement implies that the decision made by the Supreme Court is based on a greater understanding and wisdom than that of a few federal judges, but it does not provide any evidence or reasoning for this claim.
][Justice Neil Gorsuch] a handful of federal judges cannot begin to 'match' the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding 'how best to handle' homelessness.[/
In City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the court rules that camping ban laws restricting the homeless from sleeping on public property do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
The court overrules its 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which held that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the court rules that courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.
In Fischer v. United States, the court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired or attempted to impair the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding.
Accuracy
The Supreme Court allows cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places.
SCOTUS ruled in the Grants Pass vs. Johnson case, overturning a previous 2018 court ruling that ticketing members of the homeless community for sleeping in public constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
SCOTUS ruled in the Grants Pass vs. Johnson case, overturning a previous 2018 court ruling that ticketing members of the homeless community for sleeping in public constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
The case started in Boise after a group of people in the city’s homeless community filed a federal lawsuit challenging the policy in 2012.
Boise had previously changed its policies to only ticket people for sleeping outside if no beds were available in the city’s homeless shelters.
Accuracy
The ruling allows cities in the Western U.S., including the City of Boise, to ticket people for sleeping in public when they have nowhere else to go.
In City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the court rules that camping ban laws restricting the homeless from sleeping on public property do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Deception
(50%)
The author expresses her opinion on the Supreme Court ruling and its potential impact on cities in the Western US. She also quotes Mayor McLean's statement opposing the ruling and expresses her own view that criminalizing homelessness does not solve the problem. These statements are editorializing, pontification, and author opinions.
This ruling does nothing but cause people to be further in their homelessness.
The ruling was 6-3 on party lines, with the justices appointed by Democratic presidents, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
This is one of the most significant court cases on homelessness in decades and will send ripples throughout the country as cities struggle with high housing prices, low inventory, and rising numbers of people looking to the streets as a place to live after prices spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It's dangerous, it's unhealthy. Everything is wrong about trying to live on the side of the road somewhere in a tent. I've always wanted and hoped for homeless people to come to the rescue mission because they will find a welcome and safety for themselves and their families.
In Boise, we take care of people.
Mayor Lauren McLean released a statement opposing the ruling Friday morning, saying the City of Boise will stay committed to its projects.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion that ticketing people for sleeping in public is not cruel and unusual punishment. This is a formal fallacy as it does not logically prove that the ruling is correct or just.
“The court cannot say that the punishments Grants Pass imposes here qualify as cruel and unusual.”
“Such punishments do not qualify as cruel because they are not designed to (inflict) ‘terror, pain, or disgrace.’ Nor are they unusual,”
Bias
(95%)
The author expresses her opposition to the SCOTUS ruling through her choice of language and quotes from individuals who share her perspective. She describes the ruling as significant and a setback for those experiencing homelessness. The author also mentions that the decision was made on party lines, implying a political bias. However, she does not use derogatory language or make extreme claims about those who hold opposing views.
Boise Rescue Mission’s CEO, Reverend Bill Roscoe, told BoiseDev he is supportive of the decision because he believes it will incentivize people who have been resistant to using homeless shelters to come to his and find help instead of staying outside to face criminal penalties.
Jodi Peterson-Stigers, Interfaith Sanctuary’s executive director, fiercely disagrees. She said it does nothing but cause people to be further in their homelessness.
Mayor Lauren McLean released a statement opposing the ruling Friday morning, saying the City of Boise will stay committed to its projects and fund support services to help people with mental health, substance abuse, and other barriers.
This is one of the most significant court cases on homelessness in decades and will send ripples throughout the country as cities struggle with high housing prices, low inventory, and rising numbers of people looking to the streets as a place to live after prices spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Supreme Court ruled that a small Oregon town has the authority to enforce ordinances criminalizing behaviors associated with being homeless, such as sleeping or camping on public property, even when no shelter is available.
Oregon Law Center sued Grants Pass in 2018 on behalf of its unhoused population, arguing that the city’s policies violated the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that homelessness is complex and its causes are many, but the public policy responses required to address it may also be complex.
Accuracy
The decision allows other metropolitan areas struggling with rising homelessness to enact similar restrictive laws targeting outdoor camping.
Oregon Law Center sued Grants Pass in 2018 on behalf of its unhoused population, arguing that the city’s policies violated the Eighth Amendment.
Grants Pass city code makes it illegal to sleep in public parks or use sleeping materials to set up temporary living space. Those found guilty more than twice in one year face up to 30 days in jail and a $1,250 fine.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting Justice Neil Gorsuch's statement 'Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it.' This does not constitute a logical fallacy on its own, but it can create an impression of expertise or authority that may influence readers. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating 'The decision effectively gives the OK to other metropolitan areas struggling with rising homelessness to enact similar restrictive laws targeting outdoor camping.' This is an opinion and not a logical fallacy, but it can create a biased perspective for the reader.
]The intrigue: Regardless of the court[s] decision, the city of Grants Pass must comply with an Oregon law, which requires that restrictions on a person[s] ability to use a blanket or pillow to keep warm and dry while living outside must be [objectively reasonable].[/](Regardless of the court’s decision, the city of Grants Pass must comply with an Oregon law, which requires that restrictions on a person’s ability to use a blanket or pillow to keep warm and dry while living outside must be objectively reasonable.)
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating 'The decision effectively gives the OK to other metropolitan areas struggling with rising homelessness to enact similar restrictive laws targeting outdoor camping.'
Bias
(80%)
The author expresses disappointment from the 'other side' and uses language that depicts the city's actions as punishing homeless residents. This suggests a bias against the city and its efforts to enforce ordinances related to homelessness.
>We are disappointed that a majority of the court has decided that our Constitution allows a city to punish its homeless residents simply for sleeping outside with a blanket to survive the cold when there is nowhere else for them to go<
