White Liberal Media Deceives: The Supreme Ct Didn’t “Allow” Cities to Ban Homeless Encampments. It Just said Laws that Do So Don’t Violate the 8th Amendment - but Can Still be Challenged Other Ways

***Photo Above "Georgetown Blues" taken by*** ***Vincent R Brown.***
**although African Americans make up just 12.5% of the general population, Some 40.4% of the national homeless population is black, according to the University of Maryland School of Public Health, [MORE**] **FUNKTIONARY** **EXPLAINS**
HOMELESS – THE INFORMATIONALLY DISENFRANCHISED AND IN MANY CASES ALSO THE PSYCHOLOGICALLY DISENGAGED. THE STREETS MAY BELONG TO THE PEOPLE, BUT THEY MAKE LESS THAN IDEAL PLACES TO LIVE. IN THE COLD, THE HOMELESS LOOK FOR THE “GRATE” OUTDOORS.

In City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, the plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of the homeless population living in Grants Pass, alleging that the city’s ordinances against public camping violated the Eighth Amendment.

They claimed that the law punished the mere status of being homeless and compared it to a punishment that made it a crime to be a drug addict, or punishment for simply being a drug addict.

An injunction was originally entered, prohibiting the city from enforcing its laws against homeless individuals. The US Supreme Court overruled this injunction holding that enforcement of the city’s laws did not constitute “cruel and unusual” punishment prohibited by the Eight Amendment.

The Court explained that the 8th Amendment’s “The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause focuses on the question what “method or kind of punishment” a government may impose after a criminal conviction, not on the question whether a government may criminalize particular behavior in the first place or how it may go about securing a conviction for that offense.” One rare exception to the court’s focus on the punishment after a defendant has been found guilty is that a State may not enact laws that criminalize the mere status of being a drug addict (Robinson case). The Court stated,

“Public camping ordinances like those before us are nothing like the law at issue in Robinson. Rather than criminalize mere status, Grants Pass forbids actions like “occupy[ing] a campsite” on public property “for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live.” Grants Pass Municipal Code §§5.61.030, 5.61.010; App. to Pet. for Cert. 221a–222a. Under the city’s laws, it makes no difference whether the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker on vacation passing through town, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building. In that respect, the city’s laws parallel those found in countless jurisdictions across the country. And because laws like these do not criminalize mere status, Robinson is not implicated.”

In other words, the law at issue did not just punish the mere status of being homeless. Rather, it punished particular activity, such as sleeping or occupying prohibited places. It explained, although homelessness, like being a drug addict, might be an involuntary act, the 8th Amendment does not cover conduct that flows from any “condition [the defendant] is powerless to change.”

Contrary to the Dependent media coverage of this case, the court did not allow cities to enforce homeless encampment bans. States have broad authority to criminalize conduct. This decision did not allow cities to do anything - it simply says that laws prohibiting homeless encampments don’t violate the 8th Amendment. Persons charged with a crime can still raise other defenses such as a necessity defense or plaintiffs can raise other legal challenges to such laws.