|
KAJO 99.7FM - News Story KAJO 99.7FM - News StoryNavigation Frame
* News & Weather
* Local News
* Storm Activity
* Contests
* Contest Info
* Contest Rules
* Events & Features
* Athlete of the Week
* Community Calendar
* Birthday Shout-Out
* Pet of the Week
* Lost & Found
Local News
United States Supreme Court Seems Split on Allowing Cities to Regulate Homelessness
The US Supreme Court today dove into the high-stakes case on homelessness that originated in Grants Pass with justices struggling to figure out where to draw the line on how far cities can go to regulate how people sleep or camp in public spaces.
The Oregonian reports they also asked if the Supreme Court even needed to intervene in this case since Oregon in 2021 adopted its own state law that allowed for "objectively reasonable" time, place and manner limits on sitting, lying or sleeping outside.
During two-and-a-half hours of lively argument, conservative justices questioned why federal judges should weigh into municipal policy decisions. They wondered why those affected by camping ordinances in Grants Pass can't raise the defense in state courts that their individual circumstances left them with nowhere else to sleep once they're fined or charged with a crime in state courts, instead of seeking a broad ban on the city's ordinances. The liberal justices, in turn, hammered the city's lawyer, who claimed that homelessness isn't considered a status.
Attorney Theane D. Evangelis, representing Grants Pass, argued that the city's laws punished the general conduct of sleeping outside in public places and not the broad condition of being homeless.
The case arose when several homeless people filed suit against Grants Pass in 2018, alleging the city's aggressive enforcement of its public camping and sleeping ordinances were intended to banish them from town. Police repeatedly told them to "move along" and then issued tickets that carried fines of several hundred dollars, park exclusions and then criminal trespass charges.
A divided 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals barred the city from enforcing the laws, finding they criminalized the status of being homeless in violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and the city petitioned for the Supreme Court's review.
The case has been touted as one of the most significant involving homelessness to come before the court in decades, and could have significant reverberations around the country depending on how broadly or narrowly the Supreme Court rules.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by the end of June.
Posted on 4/22/24 6:31AM by Sam Marsh
Go back
analysis of article text
|
prohibitionist
|
prohibition_agency
|
drugwar_propaganda
|
legalization
|
drug_reformer
| |
reform_referenda
|
cannabis
|
stimulant
|
narcotic
|
hallucinogen
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
propaganda analysis
| st:0 fo:0 s:0 d:0 c:0.04 db:0.23 a:0.18 m:0.02 t:0.78 (f) |
text of article used for CRITICAL ANALYSIS, under FAIR USE provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, et al.
| 
(video)
EXP - explicit prohibition propaganda (explicit_propaganda)
GRP - hated group (propaganda_theme1)
MAD - madness, violence, illness (propaganda_theme2)
SOC - survival of society (propaganda_theme3)
USE - gateway, use is abuse (propaganda_theme4)
KID - children (propaganda_theme5)
WAR - demonize, war, epidemic (propaganda_theme6)
TOT - total prohibition (propaganda_theme7)
DIS - dissent opposed (propaganda_theme8)
