The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a case out of Southern Oregon that could make sweeping policy changes to the way cities address homelessness and enforce rules around public camping.

In 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Grants Pass from enforcing public camping ordinances through fines, saying it violated the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment. That ruling built off a 2019 decision out of Boise, Idaho, where the same court found a person cannot be criminally punished for sleeping in public if there’s nowhere else for them to go.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240116133347/https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/12/us-supreme-court-takes-grants-pass-oregon-case-homeless-policies/

    • Too Lazy Didn't Name@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      What about a 5% of your total wealth fine rounded down to the nearest $100 (if we could accurately find and report the wealth of individuals).

      Houseless people would get a big fat $0 fine and that rich fucker who could usually just write the fee off as an incidental would be hurting.

      • workerONE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        So if you have $25,000 paid into a car loan but no liquid assets the government forces the sale of your car to collect their $1,250. Maybe they sell it fast for less than it’s worth. Now you have no car and lost a great deal of money.

        Maybe your wealth is in your home.

        You think camping without a permit warrants taking 5% of everything you have? That’s insanity. What if you do it twice? What other offences might you also want to collect 5% for? Littering or jaywalking? Smoking?

        Let’s say you have $1000 in the bank and nothing else. The government wants their $50 but you don’t pay because you need that money. Now you have to pay a late fee or something, probably get arrested and put in front of a judge, spend time in jail for not paying?

        That’s not the way

  • Wooster@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Does cruel and unusual punishment apply here?

    My limited understanding of the topic is that ‘cruel but usual’ and ‘unusual but not cruel’ can invalidate the charge. And unfortunately, the mistreatment of the homeless could be seen as usual.

    • digger@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It won’t apply in front of this court. The USA, where corporations are considered people but the homeless are not.

      • Too Lazy Didn't Name@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        It should apply, if only the rich werent the ruling class. Id consider taking money from someone who has nothing/very little to be cruel.

    • quindraco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      No, but the problem is that SCOTUS likes to ignore the consequences of the 1A right to assemble (which is why you have abridged rights during a traffic stop - you have no right to travel to your assembly point, even though it’s a necessary right in order to have freedom of assembly), which is what actually covers the general right of people to exist in public, since they must in order to assemble.