UPDATE

PREVIOUS OP

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that they would hear the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass. This sets the stage for the most significant Supreme Court case about the rights of homeless people in decades. At its core, this case will decide whether cities are allowed to punish people for things like sleeping outside with a pillow or blanket, even when there are no safe shelter options.

The National Homelessness Law Center fully expects the Supreme Court to protect the rights of people who are forced to live outside and to follow the consistent precedents set by lower federal courts. The Constitution’s protection from Cruel and Unusual punishment applies to all people, not just those fortunate enough to have their own home. In deciding this case, SCOTUS will determine if people who are forced to sleep outside are allowed to do so without the threat of arrest or fines.

Contrary to the statements of those who believe cities can arrest and ticket their way out of homelessness, this case does not limit communities’ response to addressing homelessness. Cities remain free to use any of the many evidence-based approaches that end homelessness, like housing. All this case says is that, unless everybody has access to shelter that meets their needs, they cannot be arrested, ticketed, or otherwise punished for sleeping outside. If politicians were truly focused on ending homelessness, they would focus on proven solutions like housing and services. Sadly, too many policymakers seem eager to focus on costly, harmful solutions – like jails and fines – that make homelessness worse. Cities that have failed to provide for the basic needs of their residents, like housing and shelter, should not be allowed to punish people when they have no safe place to go.

Homelessness is growing not because cities lack ways to punish people for being poor, but because a growing number of hard-working Americans are struggling to pay rent and make ends meet. Grants Pass, Oregon, like many cities in America, is thousands of housing units short of what is needed. The lack of housing and resulting homelessness will not be solved by putting more people in jail or issuing more fines. The solution to homelessness is safe, decent, and affordable housing for everybody.

Still, not criminalizing homelessness is the bare minimum. The rent is too high for most Americans, and many hard-working families are just one missed paycheck or accident away from losing their housing. The Court’s ruling will have a tremendous impact on the 250,000 people who sleep outside on a given night. We are confident that the court will affirm what we have said for years: the solution to homelessness is housing, not jail cells or courtrooms.

More: johnsonvgrantspass.com

Housing is a right. Goddamn right

The Ws for people that stayed home or voted 3rd party in the 2016 election keep coming

This is a means to funnel homeless people into prison slavery

The 13th amendment permits slavery only as a legal punishment. This would increase the penal labor force by hundreds of thousands

Our massive prison population is not an arbitrary statistic. Everyone is aware of it, what it entails, and why it can be beneficial to them

What?

Star Trek dead on the money with this possibly happening in 2024

If they are accurate again, expect nuclear war in two years

This Supreme Court was elected in the 2016 election

Yeah it’s so they can legalize weed, gotta get another prison work force

The Supreme Court is a fundamentally undemocratic institution and America’s political institution was always going to backslide into a conservative, quasi-fascist position after Obama and the vitriolic reaction to his pretty unremarkable presidency

If you wanted progress even back then, it was going to be a fight taken through the union, the protest, and the direct action

What

Legalizing marijuana would reduce the ability to prosecute

F*** Amerikkka

And I can guarantee prison lobbies are behind it. They probably created it with their legal team lmao.

It is a horrible institution and should not be apart of our current government structure.

However, it was by no means a “given” that it would become as conservative as it has become.

Even if it was not by any means something that could be described as “progressive” prior to 2016, the people had it in their power to vote for President and Congress in the 2016 election in a way that took into account the fact that those votes would heavily impact the Supreme Court as well (given the current makeup of the court at that time). A lot of people who would call themselves progressive made a choice in that election (whether strategic or not) that gave a clear path to this conservative Supreme court we have now.

I’m entirely for Supreme Court reform. But acting like that’s the only means to affect the actions of the Court, and that past actions in elections have not had consequences on topics like the one in OP is nonsensical.

It was absolutely a given

The Supreme Court was also the basis for enshrining civil rights and the social security act and stuff. That's why conservatives set their sights on it as a generational project. It's not a democratic institution, but it has been used for good in the past. I think we should recognize that democratic institutions aren't exactly inherently good either. The presidency is a democratic position and it's an abomination.

you smug liberal dumbasses are going to be responsible for our swift descent into fascism and destruction of peoples and our planet

You got got your guy in office and he’s currently committing a genocide cut the bullshit

Fascism is right here

i will expect nothing and still be disappointed

Exactly so instead of pot heads they get homeless

Tankies want the downfall of America, they cool with a future of fasicm if the world crumbles

What are tankies?

what are you gonna tell your son when he asks why daddy supported a man who helped carry out a genocide