To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
A homeless person is seen near a subway station in New York City on February 21, 2022.
Criminalization is not a legitimate tool to combat houselessness as it subjects people to cruel treatment and arbitrary arrest, punishing them for simply existing in public space because they lack housing.
The United States Supreme Court decision last month in Grants Pass v. Johnson gives local governments across the country the authority to ticket, arrest, and punish unhoused people for simply existing in public spaces. The ruling undermines the right to adequate housing in the U.S.; it is also profoundly cruel and risks an increase in ineffective criminalization.
In its ruling, the court overturned decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this case and in Martin v. Boise, which limited punishment if there was no other place for a person legally to go or if there was no shelter available. The court said that criminalizing a person for their unhoused status does not violate the prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments” in the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Criminalization causes suffering, but does nothing to house people.
The Supreme Court had previously held that authorities may not punish a person based solely on their status, as opposed to their conduct. The Grants Pass majority did not explicitly overrule that precedent, but said the Eighth Amendment only applies to the form of punishment—not the outlawed conduct or status—and that state governments may choose to criminalize whatever they want without violating the Constitution. This ruling opens the door to further punishment of poverty and other statuses.
This decision gives local and state governments a green light to enact and enforce laws banning unhoused people from public spaces, regardless of whether adequate housing or shelter is available to them. States across the country, including Georgia, Texas, Florida, and others, have already passed such laws. A recent study found that the majority of cities examined already had such laws in place.
In Los Angeles, previously limited by the Ninth Circuit precedent, city councilmembers have already begun to explore options to further criminalize unhoused people in light of the Supreme Court decision. Other jurisdictions will likely race to take similar steps, not wanting to be the only areas in their region where unhoused people can safely stay.
Criminalization is not, as the majority opinion claims, a legitimate tool to combat houselessness as it subjects people to cruel treatment and arbitrary arrest, punishing them for simply existing in public space because they lack housing. Criminalization is also proven to be ineffective. It forces unhoused people to hide from view, separating them from helpful services. Criminalization causes suffering, but does nothing to house people. This ruling allows authorities to ignore real solutions, especially providing and preserving affordable housing, because they can simply chase unhoused people away with the threat of criminal enforcement.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
The United States Supreme Court decision last month in Grants Pass v. Johnson gives local governments across the country the authority to ticket, arrest, and punish unhoused people for simply existing in public spaces. The ruling undermines the right to adequate housing in the U.S.; it is also profoundly cruel and risks an increase in ineffective criminalization.
In its ruling, the court overturned decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this case and in Martin v. Boise, which limited punishment if there was no other place for a person legally to go or if there was no shelter available. The court said that criminalizing a person for their unhoused status does not violate the prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments” in the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Criminalization causes suffering, but does nothing to house people.
The Supreme Court had previously held that authorities may not punish a person based solely on their status, as opposed to their conduct. The Grants Pass majority did not explicitly overrule that precedent, but said the Eighth Amendment only applies to the form of punishment—not the outlawed conduct or status—and that state governments may choose to criminalize whatever they want without violating the Constitution. This ruling opens the door to further punishment of poverty and other statuses.
This decision gives local and state governments a green light to enact and enforce laws banning unhoused people from public spaces, regardless of whether adequate housing or shelter is available to them. States across the country, including Georgia, Texas, Florida, and others, have already passed such laws. A recent study found that the majority of cities examined already had such laws in place.
In Los Angeles, previously limited by the Ninth Circuit precedent, city councilmembers have already begun to explore options to further criminalize unhoused people in light of the Supreme Court decision. Other jurisdictions will likely race to take similar steps, not wanting to be the only areas in their region where unhoused people can safely stay.
Criminalization is not, as the majority opinion claims, a legitimate tool to combat houselessness as it subjects people to cruel treatment and arbitrary arrest, punishing them for simply existing in public space because they lack housing. Criminalization is also proven to be ineffective. It forces unhoused people to hide from view, separating them from helpful services. Criminalization causes suffering, but does nothing to house people. This ruling allows authorities to ignore real solutions, especially providing and preserving affordable housing, because they can simply chase unhoused people away with the threat of criminal enforcement.
The United States Supreme Court decision last month in Grants Pass v. Johnson gives local governments across the country the authority to ticket, arrest, and punish unhoused people for simply existing in public spaces. The ruling undermines the right to adequate housing in the U.S.; it is also profoundly cruel and risks an increase in ineffective criminalization.
In its ruling, the court overturned decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this case and in Martin v. Boise, which limited punishment if there was no other place for a person legally to go or if there was no shelter available. The court said that criminalizing a person for their unhoused status does not violate the prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments” in the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Criminalization causes suffering, but does nothing to house people.
The Supreme Court had previously held that authorities may not punish a person based solely on their status, as opposed to their conduct. The Grants Pass majority did not explicitly overrule that precedent, but said the Eighth Amendment only applies to the form of punishment—not the outlawed conduct or status—and that state governments may choose to criminalize whatever they want without violating the Constitution. This ruling opens the door to further punishment of poverty and other statuses.
This decision gives local and state governments a green light to enact and enforce laws banning unhoused people from public spaces, regardless of whether adequate housing or shelter is available to them. States across the country, including Georgia, Texas, Florida, and others, have already passed such laws. A recent study found that the majority of cities examined already had such laws in place.
In Los Angeles, previously limited by the Ninth Circuit precedent, city councilmembers have already begun to explore options to further criminalize unhoused people in light of the Supreme Court decision. Other jurisdictions will likely race to take similar steps, not wanting to be the only areas in their region where unhoused people can safely stay.
Criminalization is not, as the majority opinion claims, a legitimate tool to combat houselessness as it subjects people to cruel treatment and arbitrary arrest, punishing them for simply existing in public space because they lack housing. Criminalization is also proven to be ineffective. It forces unhoused people to hide from view, separating them from helpful services. Criminalization causes suffering, but does nothing to house people. This ruling allows authorities to ignore real solutions, especially providing and preserving affordable housing, because they can simply chase unhoused people away with the threat of criminal enforcement.