Supreme Court to Decide on Constitutionality of Grants Pass's Homeless Ordinances: Implications for Cities and Housing Solutions

Grants Pass, Oregon United States of America
Approximately 600 homeless individuals live on the streets in Grants Pass and face civil penalties, including fines and criminal charges for sleeping outside on public property.
A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Grants Pass could change how cities approach homelessness, potentially leading to more arrests and fines instead of focusing on housing solutions.
On April 19, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of Grants Pass, Oregon's ordinances prohibiting homeless individuals from using blankets, pillows or cardboard boxes for protection while sleeping in city limits.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled such laws violate the Eighth Amendment when no shelters are available, but Grants Pass argues it's trying to combat encampments with limited shelter space.
Supreme Court to Decide on Constitutionality of Grants Pass's Homeless Ordinances: Implications for Cities and Housing Solutions

On April 19, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that could significantly impact homeless individuals and cities' approaches to addressing homelessness. The issue at hand is the constitutionality of ordinances in Grants Pass, Oregon that prohibit people from using blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for protection while sleeping within city limits. The city argues these laws simply bar camping on public property by everyone, but challengers claim they unfairly target homeless individuals.

Grants Pass is home to approximately 600 homeless individuals who live on the streets involuntarily. The city has enforced ordinances that impose civil penalties, including fines, on people sleeping outside on public property. Unpaid fines can become criminal charges.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has previously ruled that such laws are illegal as they violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment when no shelters are available. However, Grants Pass argues it is trying to combat encampments and lacks enough space in shelters for its homeless population.

The Supreme Court case could have far-reaching implications for cities across the country dealing with homelessness. Some argue that a ruling in favor of Grants Pass could change how cities approach the issue, potentially leading to more arrests and fines instead of focusing on housing solutions.

Advocacy groups, such as the National Homelessness Law Center, have called on Congress and President Biden to ensure everyone has access to housing as a decision is expected by the end of June. Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that addressing homelessness requires a comprehensive approach that prioritizes housing solutions over punitive measures.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

91%

Doubts
  • Are there any alternative solutions to address homeless encampments besides punitive measures?
  • The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled such laws violate the Eighth Amendment when no shelters are available. Is there enough evidence that Grants Pass lacks sufficient shelter space?

Sources

84%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Record numbers in the US are homeless. Can cities fine them for sleeping in parks and on sidewalks?

The Associated Press News Saturday, 20 April 2024 13:04
  • Unique Points
    • Record numbers of people in America are experiencing homelessness, with over 650,000 estimated to be homeless.
    • The Supreme Court is set to consider a challenge to rulings from a California-based appeals court that found punishing people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.
    • Advocacy groups argue that the decisions provide essential legal protections, especially as more people are forced to sleep outdoors due to rising housing costs.
    • The case originates from Grants Pass, Oregon, where rents are rising and there is only one overnight shelter for adults leading to a growing number of tents in public parks. The city banned camping and set $295 fines for people sleeping there.
    • Grants Pass appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the ruling left it few good options and made it impossible for cities to address growing encampments which are unsafe, unhealthy, and problematic for everyone.
    • If the Martin v. Boise decision is overturned, advocates say it would make it easier for cities to deal with homelessness by arresting and fining people rather than helping them get shelter and housing.
  • Accuracy
    • The Supreme Court is set to consider a challenge to rulings from a California-based appeals court that found punishing people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.
    • Grants Pass appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the ruling left it few good options and made it impossible for cities to address growing encampments which are unsafe, unhealthy, and problematic for everyone.
    • The city also challenges a 2018 decision known as Martin v. Boise that first barred camping bans when shelter space is lacking. This ruling applies to the nine Western states in the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction.
    • If the Martin v. Boise decision is overturned, advocates say it would make it easier for cities to deal with homelessness by arresting and fining people rather than helping them get shelter and housing.
  • Deception (30%)
    The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the argument of the city and does not provide a balanced perspective. The author also uses emotional manipulation by describing the growing number of homeless people and their living conditions to elicit sympathy from readers, which may influence their perception of the issue. Additionally, there are statements made by officials that are presented as facts without any supporting evidence or references to peer-reviewed studies.
    • Grants Pass appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the ruling left it few good options.
    • The city banned camping and set $295 fines for people sleeping there.
    • If the decision is overturned, advocates say it would make it easier for cities deal with homelessness by arresting and fining people rather than helping them get shelter and housing.
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

94%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

There is no constitutional right to pitch your tent on the sidewalk

The Fixing Site: A Summary of the Article. Editorial Board Friday, 19 April 2024 21:58
  • Unique Points
    • The unique legal doctrine of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has hindered enforcement of local public camping bans in these states.
    • The 9th Circuit approach was initially intended to prevent criminalization of poverty and encourage cities to offer shelters, but has proven counterproductive.
    • Grants Pass faced issues with the 9th Circuit's requirements because 138 of its shelter beds were at the Gospel Rescue Mission.
    • The real-world damage caused by federal court supervision of a traditionally local responsibility has become evident in Grants Pass, where campers used the Rogue River for bathing, a bathroom, and drinking water. In larger cities like San Francisco, problems include over 800 fires started by people cooking or warming themselves in homeless encampments, spreading diseases and dangerous waste.
  • Accuracy
    • In the United States, 41% of the 653,000 people experiencing homelessness live in the nine westernmost states.
    • California has the highest rate of unsheltered homeless people with 68% of its 181,000 homeless individuals living outside.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (80%)
    The Editorial Board expresses a clear bias against the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and its legal doctrine regarding public camping bans. They argue that this doctrine is counterproductive and has undermined quality of life for both homeless people and those living near encampments. The Editorial Board also expresses frustration with the narrow definition of acceptable shelters by federal judges, which they claim has left local officials 'trapped' and unable to take action against public camping. They advocate for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Grants Pass, implying that this would help restore order to parks, streets, and sidewalks across the West.
    • Fortunately, the Supreme Court can help restore order, to constitutional law and to parks, streets and sidewalks across the West.
      • The 9th Circuit approach has shown itself to be counterproductive.
        • The bigger the city, the bigger the problems. San Francisco saw more than 800 fires started by people cooking or warming themselves in homeless encampments last year. Diseases have spread, along with dangerous waste such as discarded syringes and needles.
          • To read the Oregon town’s brief, and those of its supporters at the Supreme Court, is to marvel at the gap between the 9th Circuit’s vision and the real-world damage that comes from federal-court supervision of this traditionally local responsibility.
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication

          99%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          Supreme Court to hear case on criminal penalties for homelessness

          SCOTUSblog Unknown amy-howe Friday, 19 April 2024 18:00
          • Unique Points
            • The Supreme Court will hear a case on April 19, 2024 regarding the constitutionality of ordinances in Grants Pass, Oregon that prohibit homeless individuals from using blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for protection while sleeping within city limits.
            • Approximately 600 people in Grants Pass experience homelessness and live on the streets involuntarily.
          • Accuracy
            • The Supreme Court is set to consider a challenge to rulings from a California-based appeals court that found punishing people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.
            • Grants Pass, Oregon has enforced camping bans and has a vacancy rate of one percent with essentially no affordable housing.
          • Deception (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Fallacies (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Bias (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication

          95%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          This Oregon town could usher in a nationwide crackdown on homelessness

          The San Francisco Chronicle Joe Garofoli Friday, 19 April 2024 11:00
          • Unique Points
            • The city of Grants Pass in Oregon is ordering homeless people to leave their public spaces every 72 hours and face a $295 ticket if they don’t comply.
            • Brenda Daigneault, a homeless woman in Grants Pass, was ordered to leave Tussing Park and move to the next closest park due to the city’s anti-camping rules.
            • The US Supreme Court will hear a case on Monday regarding Grants Pass’ anti-camping rules and their compliance with the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
            • In 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that local governments cannot make it a crime to sleep on public streets or sidewalks when no shelters are available.
            • The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals further ruled in 2022 that Grants Pass could not punish homeless people by imposing civil fines that turn into criminal penalties when unpaid.
          • Accuracy
            • Grants Pass appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the ruling left it few good options and made it impossible for cities to address growing encampments which are unsafe, unhealthy, and problematic for everyone.
            • Approximately 600 people in Grants Pass experience homelessness and live on the streets involuntarily.
          • Deception (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Fallacies (85%)
            The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy. The author cites legal scholars and advocates on both sides of the case without providing a balanced view of their arguments or evidence for their claims. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction in the phrase 'the endless choreography that law enforcement officers and the unhoused perform in Grants Pass – one that could soon reverberate far beyond Oregon', which oversimplifies the complex issue of homelessness.
            • . . . legal scholars and advocates on both sides of the case say the court’s decision could reshape homeless policy across the nation.
            • Grants Pass appealed, and the court is set to hear arguments in the case.
            • A host of states, cities and politicians have weighed in, arguing that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling handicaps local governments’ ability to protect...
          • Bias (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication

          97%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          Supreme Court case could make homelessness a crime

          Gray DC Josh Rultenberg Friday, 19 April 2024 18:19
          • Unique Points
            • The Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether laws punishing homeless people with civil penalties violate the Constitution.
            • Grants Pass, Oregon is the face of a Supreme Court case surrounding the homelessness crisis.
            • Officials in Grants Pass claim they are trying to combat encampments but courts have tied their hands.
            • The city of Grants Pass imposes civil penalties, including fines, on people sleeping outside on public property. Unpaid fines can become criminal charges.
          • Accuracy
            No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
          • Deception (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Fallacies (85%)
            The article contains an appeal to authority and a potential slippery slope fallacy. The author quotes Jesse Rabinowitz from the National Homelessness Law Center as part of an attempt to discredit Grants Pass's actions. Additionally, the article mentions a potential change in how cities across the country deal with homelessness if the court sides with Grants Pass, which is a slippery slope fallacy.
            • . . .the city of Grants Pass, instead of focusing on things that and homelessness like housing, started giving out $295 tickets to people sleeping outside for using things like a blanket in the middle of the winter. That is the definition of cruel and unusual, and that's what this case is about.
            • . . .if the court sides with Grants Pass, it could change how cities across the country deal with homelessness.
          • Bias (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication