City of Grants Pass challenged Ninth Circuit Court ruling
Decision determined it is up to states, not federal courts to determine restrictions
Ruling has mixed reactions across cities in the US
Some argue it is a blow to vulnerable people, others welcome new policies
U.S. Supreme Court allows cities to enforce homelessness bans
The U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark decision on June 28, 2024, allowing cities to enforce bans on unsheltered homelessness in public spaces. The ruling came after the city of Grants Pass in Oregon challenged a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that granted protections for people experiencing homelessness throughout much of the Western United States (AP).
The Supreme Court's decision, which was supported by six conservative justices, determined that it is up to the states and not federal courts to determine how these restrictions are made. The court found Grants Pass' policy penalizing people who sit or sleep on public property did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment (OPB).
The ruling has sparked mixed reactions across cities in the United States, with some applauding the decision and others pushing back. For instance, San Francisco Mayor London N. Breed welcomed the ruling and will review it before implementing new policies (AP). In contrast, Portland's mayor hopes that the state legislature will take up the issue after this ruling (Seattle).
Despite these developments, some homeless advocates have criticized the decision as a blow to vulnerable people. They argue that punishing people for their status is cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment (AP). The number of homeless students in Greenville County Schools increased by over 300 at the end of the school year, highlighting the severity of this issue (Wyff4).
It is important to note that this ruling does not change much for Oregon due to a state law that provides protections for people experiencing homelessness. However, it will significantly impact outdoor camping policies across the Western United States.
The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the city of Grants Pass to regulate and penalize unsheltered homelessness.
Grants Pass challenged a 2018 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that granted protections for people experiencing unsheltered homelessness throughout much of the Western United States.
Attorneys representing people experiencing homelessness in Grants Pass called the decision a blow to some of the nation’s most vulnerable people.
Accuracy
]The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the city of Grants Pass to regulate and penalize unsheltered homelessness.[
The Supreme Court ruled that cities can ban people from sleeping outdoors.
The court determined it is up to the states, not federal courts, to determine how these restrictions are made.
US Supreme Court allows cities to enforce bans on sleeping outside in public spaces
San Francisco Mayor London N. Breed applauds the ruling and will review it before implementing new policies
Portland, Oregon, mayor's office hopes state legislature will take up issue after ruling
Boise, Idaho’s mayor says city will not change approach to those sleeping in public spaces
California Governor Gavin Newsom sees the ruling as giving definitive authority to enforce policies clearing unwanted encampments
Accuracy
The court's decision found that Grants Pass policy on penalizing people who sit or sleep on public property did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
Cities across the country have struggled with rising number of homeless people and related health and safety issues
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting various officials and their reactions to the Supreme Court decision. This is not a fallacy as long as it is clear that the author is reporting on their statements and not endorsing them.
][San Francisco Mayor London N. Breed] We will continue to lead with services, but we also can’t continue to allow people to do what they want on the streets of San Francisco, especially when we have a place for them to go.[/]
[California Gov. Gavin Newsom] This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years and limited their ability to deliver on common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities.[/
The Supreme Court cleared the way for cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places.
Grants Pass challenged a 2018 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that granted protections for people experiencing unsheltered homelessness throughout much of the Western United States.
Homelessness is a reality for so many Americans, and punishing people for something they can’t control, like homelessness, is cruel and unusual.
The case came 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.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports on the Supreme Court's decision allowing cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside without mentioning the dissenting opinion or alternative solutions. The author also uses emotional manipulation by implying that allowing cities to punish homeless people for sleeping outside will make the crisis worse.
The article implies that allowing cities to punish homeless people for sleeping outside will ultimately make the crisis worse.
The only way to truly address it, she said, is to connect people with housing and services.
Fallacies
(80%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion that the collective wisdom of the American people is better suited to handle homelessness than a few federal judges. This is a fallacious argument as it does not address the specific issue at hand and ignores the fact that these laws disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.
Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged those concerns in the opinion he wrote for the majority. “Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it.”
He suggested that people who have no choice but to sleep outdoors could raise that as a “necessity defense,” if they are ticketed or otherwise punished for violating a camping ban.
Bias
(80%)
The author uses language that depicts the homeless as a problem to be managed and criminalizes their actions for survival. The author also quotes Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledging concerns about compassionate solutions but ultimately upholds the decision to allow cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside.
Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it.
Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged those concerns in the opinion he wrote for the majority.
The Supreme Court cleared the way for cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places on Friday, overturning a ruling from a California-based appeals court that found such laws amount to cruel and unusual punishment when shelter space is lacking.
