Justices turn aside major case on homelessness law

[Elderberry]

SCOTUSblog by Amy Howe 12/16/2019

This morning the Supreme Court issued more orders from last week’s private conference. After adding five new cases to their docket on Friday, including three cases involving disputes over access to President Donald Trump’s financial records, the justices did not grant any new cases today, nor did they seek the views of the federal government.

Perhaps the biggest news on today’s order list was the justices’ announcement that they would not weigh in on the constitutionality of a Boise, Idaho, law that bans camping and sleeping in public spaces. A group of homeless and formerly homeless Boise residents challenged the law, arguing that it violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment when it is used as the basis for criminal penalties against homeless people who are sleeping outside because they cannot find space in a shelter. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed with the challengers, holding that the city cannot impose criminal penalties on homeless residents “for lacking the means to live out the universal and unavoidable consequences of being human.”

The city appealed to the Supreme Court, telling the justices that the “consequences of the 9th Circuit’s erroneous decision have already been—and will continue to be—far-reaching and catastrophic. The creation of a de facto constitutional right,” the city argued, “to live on sidewalks and in parks will cripple the ability of more than 1,600 municipalities in the Ninth Circuit to maintain the health and safety of their communities.” The city’s appeal was supported by 20 “friend of the court” briefs, some from cities and states with large homeless populations. The city of Los Angeles, for example, complained that the “broad rationale” of the 9th Circuit’s ruling could have an impact well beyond “a homeless person’s need to sleep outdoors.” But today the justices denied Boise’s appeal, leaving the 9th Circuit’s decision invalidating the law in place.

More: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/justices-turn-aside-major-case-on-homelessness-law/

[Elderberry]

Supreme Court lets stand ruling that protects homeless people who sleep on sidewalk

LA Times by David G. Savage 12/16/2019

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-16/supreme-court-lets-stand-ruling-that-protects-homeless-who-sleep-on-sidewalk

The justices without comment or a dissent said that they would not hear the case from Boise, Idaho, which challenged a ruling by a federal appeals court.

The outcome was a significant victory for homeless activists and a setback for city officials in California and other Western states who argued the ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals undercut their authority to regulate encampments on the sidewalks. The 9th Circuit had agreed with lawyers for the homeless who argued that prosecuting people for sleeping on the sidewalks violated the 8th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment if a city failed to provide adequate shelter.

A city ordinance “violates the 8th Amendment insofar as it imposes criminal sanctions against homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors on public property, when no alternative shelter is available to them,” said the ruling by the 9th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over California and eight other Western states.

More at link.

[mountaineer]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed with the challengers, holding that the city cannot impose criminal penalties on homeless residents “for lacking the means to live out the universal and unavoidable consequences of being human.”

That's the type of baloney we've come to expect from the 9th Circus.

[musiclady]

I’m with the city of Boise.

Why wouldn’t they hear this case, I wonder......

[PeteS in CA]

That's the type of baloney we've come to expect from the 9th Circus.

The US Supreme Court allowed their ruling to stand. So the USSC "owns" this idiocy now.

This idiotic ruling basically freezes enforcement of vagrancy laws - now the sacred homeless can camp almost anywhere they want with impunity unless there are open beds in shelters. How many cities' PDs get daily shelter population counts?! Some likely dangerous results of this court case and its being upheld:

* Increased property crime and violent attacks by the sacred homeless;

* Citizens' self-protection measures will escalate into violence;

* Many of the sacred homeless who live on the streets and in the parks and under freeway underpasses do not want to follow the rules of shelters, and if moved into a shelter will be a danger to others around them.

[Cyber Liberty]

* Many of the sacred homeless who live on the streets and in the parks and under freeway underpasses do not want to follow the rules of shelters, and if moved into a shelter will be a danger to others around them.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ This.   

[PeteS in CA]

Various cities' social services people jigger their population surveys so as to conceal the simple fact that a majority of the sacred homeless are some combination of chemically dependent and are mentally ill; and some simply want to live a tramping lifestyle. But the social services people want to portray the sacred homeless as people who just lost their jobs or had some financial crisis and can readily move back onto the economic ladder. Those latter people do exist, and can be helped, but until the real proportions are acknowledged and differently situated people are dealt or worked with according to who and what/where they are solutions will be impossible.

A dude(tte) who has continual conversations with people who are not real and lashes out verbally (or worse) at people who are real is not going to be benefited significantly by a shower, shave, and an apartment with a bed to sleep in. A dude(tte) who has a job and simply needs to save up enough $$ to afford an apartment would benefit from that.

[Fishrrman]

The city of Boise ought to reply to the Court as such:

"We are going to clean up our streets and protect our citizenry.
If you take issue with that, then send your troops to stop us.
Otherwise, too bad."

[catfish1957]

The city of Boise ought to reply to the Court as such:

"We are going to clean up our streets and protect our citizenry.
If you take issue with that, then send your troops to stop us.
Otherwise, too bad."

Common sense is in such short supply in this country nowadays.