Oral arguments before the Supreme Court began on April 22 of this year in deciding the constitutionality of policing unhoused people in Grants Pass v. Johnson. The case has risen from mounting national concern in addressing the housing crisis (including the 12% rise in unhoused people since 2022), as well as the specific case of Grants Pass, Oregon.
In response to over 600 of its residents experiencing houselessness and living in encampments on public property, the city government of Grants Pass began to issue fines (and subsequent arrests if fines went unpaid) for sleeping outside with the use of any form of “bedding,” which they extended to included objects such as a rolled t-shirt for a pillow. In response to such intense criminalization, organizations and activists rose to oppose the decision, most citing the Eighth Amendment (the denial of cruel and unusual punishment), claiming that when there are no attainable options of shelter, criminalization of living outside due to this lack of choice is an unjustifiable and cruel punishment. Many also argue that the amendment was written to ensure that punishments are equal and appropriate to the severity of the crime in order to promote legitimate goals (such as deterrence of harmful activity). However, the act of fining and imprisoning has been shown to simply increase vulnerability to future houselessness, as criminal records can restrict job opportunities and fines limit financial ability to purchase or rent shelter. The decision to criminalize unhoused people only feeds into what the ACLU refers to as “an endless cycle of poverty, incarceration, and institutionalization” (Hoeppner, 2024).
Despite such counterarguments, many city officials are persistent in their opinions, claiming that behavioral regulation is a right of cities, not national courts, and that the prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” was meant to eliminate torture or involuntary servitude - which they do not extend to ticketing, fining, and incarceration. Many also argue that criminalization is a viable response to homelessness, as is a challenge to both public safety and health (though little is said of care for those most vulnerable to flaws in our public safety and health systems - unhoused people).
The intersection of policing and homelessness is far from new, but this decision could have a significant impact on the capacity of arresting and erasing the stories and histories of unhoused lives. Already, over 75% of homeless outreach teams formally involve the police. This statistic becomes even more troubling when adding that more than ⅕ of unhoused people have a mental illness (as failures in our health system and care provision play a great role in creating homelessness) and that police are far more likely to use excessive force in these interactions.
Despite the weight of this decision, it is important to note that while the legalization of policing homelessness is likely to increase pressure to enact punishments, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they will be enacted. State and local officials still have the option to invest in infrastructure that will work to eliminate the root causes of insecure housing instead of criminalizing the most vulnerable to the flawed system. Some avenues forward include the creation of “tiny homes,” or temporary housing, the supplication of rental assistance or other forms of financial support to prevent unhousing to begin with, the reduction of costs in existing housing markets, and the provision of support services such as voluntary mental health and substance use treatment. Such policies not only work to eliminate root causes instead of feeding into the violent cycle of our housing and criminalizing systems, they also have been shown to be financially beneficial to governments and achieve greater reductions in unhoused populations.
Finally, one of the most important steps moving forward is to unlink the societal shaming and stigma around homelessness, and the view of it as a justifiable consequence for criminals. In the words of Scout Katovich from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “I think it’s really important to underscore that homelessness is not a nuisance, it’s a symptom of our collective failure to invest in our communities. It’s uncomfortable for sheltered people to have to confront this failure, but the answer to that discomfort is not to temporarily push people out of sight through criminal punishments. Addressing homelessness in humane and effective ways helps everyone. So many of us are just one bad circumstance away from losing our homes” (Hoeppner, 2024).
References
Chammah, M., Heffernan, S., & Schwartzapfel, B. (2024, April 10). How a supreme
court homeless case may limit prisoner rights. The Marshall Project.
Cohen, R. M. (2024, April 21). What the Supreme Court case on tent encampments
could mean for homeless people. Vox.
Fritze, J. (2024, April 21). Supreme Court to debate whether cities can punish
people who are homeless | CNN politics. CNN.
Hoeppner, K. (2024, April 5). The Supreme Court will soon determine whether
cities can punish people for sleeping in public when they have nowhere else
to go: ACLU. American Civil Liberties Union.
Press, A. (2024, April 21). Listen live: Supreme court hears whether homeless
camps can be removed without alternative shelter. PBS.
Comments