What was the ruling?
On June 28, 2024, the US Supreme Court ruled that “the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.” .
If an unhoused person is camping in a public place illegally, they are fined on the first offense. Repeat offenses are punished by temporarily preventing the person from camping in public parks. In the court’s view, these punishments are not cruel because they are not considered to add terror, pain or disgrace. These are not unusual because similarly limited fines and jail terms have been and remain one of the usual modes of punishing criminal offenses.
The plaintiff argued that homelessness should be considered a status and thus an exception like in Robinson. The court responded by asserting that public-camping laws prohibit actions undertaken by any person, regardless of status. The court cannot extend Robinson’s ruling to involuntary acts. The court believes the question of whether a person should be relieved of a responsibility due to a lack of moral culpability is generally best resolved by people and their representatives. The court concludes that the Eighth Amendment does not authorize federal judges to dictate the Nation’s homelessness policy.
Why is it important?
- 6 out of 10 are able to secure shelter beds
- 4 out of 10 are unsheltered and sleep in public places
People experiencing homelessness can be given jail time for sleeping outside even if there is no room at the local shelter. Over 600,000 people experience homelessness in America on any given night. While 6 in 10 are able to secure shelter beds, the other 4 in 10 are unsheltered and sleeping in public places. Furthermore, shelter beds that are available in theory may not be available because of restrictions based on gender, age, income, sexuality, pets, religious practice, and curfews that conflict with employment obligations, and time limits on stays.
For women, almost 60% of those experiencing homelessness report that fleeing domestic violence was the immediate cause. Domestic abusers may take advantage of the system to put the survivor’s housing at risk. They may call the police on the victim or call the public housing authority and falsely self-report that they are living in the survivor’s home when they are not supposed to. These actions can put the victim’s housing status at risk. By putting the survivor’s housing at risk the abuser knows there is an increased chance for the survivor to return to them. This ruling created another barrier for survivors by reducing the number of viable options for securing their and their family’s safety.
Furthermore, there are concerning threats of state level criminalization of homelessness. The Cicero Institute pushes bills aimed to punish people experiencing homelessness with arrest and fines at the expense of long-term housing solutions. Homelessness advocates claim that Cicero’s legislation is counterproductive. It has been shown that it costs two to three times more to keep people churning through the jail system than it does to provide housing. Additionally, in Georgia, after a Cicero-inspired law that required camping bans an audit found that in the Marietta Police Department ~50% of its officers’ time was spent dealing with homelessness issues. While Cicero has not introduced any bills in North Carolina, it is likely they will soon.
Sources & More Information:
