In a controversial decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved a measure that allows cities to punish individuals for sleeping outside. The ruling comes amidst record numbers of people without permanent housing across the country.
In a 6-3 decision, the high court reversed a previous ruling by a San Francisco-based appeals court, which had found that bans on outdoor sleeping constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court’s decision grants cities the authority to enforce these bans, raising significant concerns among advocates for the homeless.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, emphasized the complexity of homelessness and the variety of public policy responses required to address it. “Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it,” Gorsuch stated. “The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.”
In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that punishing people for sleeping outside when they have no other options is both “unconscionable and unconstitutional.” Sotomayor highlighted the harsh realities faced by those without access to shelter. “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. For some people, sleeping outside is their only option,” she wrote. “The City of Grants Pass jails and fines those people for sleeping anywhere in public at any time, including in their cars, if they use as little as a blanket to keep warm or a rolled-up shirt as a pillow. For people with no access to shelter, that punishes them for being homeless. That is unconscionable and unconstitutional. Punishing people for their status is ‘cruel and unusual’ under the Eighth Amendment.”
The ruling has significant implications for cities across the United States, as they now have clearer authority to implement and enforce policies against outdoor sleeping. This decision has sparked a heated debate about the most humane and effective ways to address the homelessness crisis.
Governor Newsom’s Reaction
California Governor Gavin Newsom responded to the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that it provides much-needed clarity for state and local officials. “The ruling provides state and local officials authority to implement and enforce policies to clear unsafe encampments,” Newsom said. He added that the decision clears up “legal ambiguities” that have previously hindered local officials’ ability to ensure public safety and clear encampments, even when shelter beds were available.
Despite the ruling, Newsom emphasized California’s ongoing commitment to providing supportive services for those experiencing homelessness. He stressed that while enforcement is necessary for public safety, the state must continue to prioritize compassionate solutions and resources for the homeless population.
Public and Advocacy Groups’ Response
The Supreme Court’s decision has drawn mixed reactions from various stakeholders. Advocacy groups for the homeless have criticized the ruling, arguing that it criminalizes poverty and fails to address the root causes of homelessness. They emphasize the need for more supportive services, affordable housing, and comprehensive strategies to help individuals transition out of homelessness.
On the other hand, some city officials and residents welcome the decision, believing it will enable more effective management of public spaces and improve community safety. They argue that the ability to enforce bans on outdoor sleeping is a necessary tool for addressing the challenges posed by large encampments.
As cities begin to navigate the implications of this ruling, the national conversation on homelessness continues to evolve. The balance between enforcement and support remains a critical issue, with policymakers and communities seeking solutions that uphold both public safety and human dignity.
