Cruel Yet Not Unusual

The Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides of Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22 of this year, with a decision anticipated by late June. The justices will ultimately decide whether the city's camping ordinances can be classified as “cruel and unusual punishment” according to the U.S. Constitution.

The ordinances enacted by Grants Pass, similar to those in other U.S. cities, impose fines ranging from $200 to $300 for violations, increasing to $500 or more if not settled in a timely manner. Repeat offenders can face orders barring them from city property, with potential trespassing charges leading to penalties of up to 30 days in jail and fines reaching $1,250.

During the hearings, the city’s broad definition of an encampment was questioned. Under the Grants Pass Municipal Code, a campsite includes any area where bedding materials are present, like a blanket on the ground, effectively making it nearly impossible to reside in the city limits without proper housing, even temporarily.

Homeless advocates hope the case will shed light on the contentious nature of such laws. Since the case began, states like Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas have enacted statewide public camping bans, though Missouri’s law was recently annulled by the state Supreme Court due to procedural issues. In Georgia, a new statute mandates cities enforce existing bans, while Portland, Oregon, introduced a daytime ban that surprised many advocates who cited insufficient shelter availability as a reason for high homeless visibility.

Despite ongoing challenges to these laws, the Supreme Court seems inclined to support the ordinances, with several justices expressing skepticism about the constitutional basis for the challenge. Justice Clarence Thomas raised the question of whether the Eighth Amendment applies to civil penalties, suggesting that the concept of “cruel or unusual punishment” may not be relevant.

In support of Grants Pass, a joint amicus brief from over 20 cities, states, and organizations emphasized the importance of local governments retaining control over their public spaces, thereby urging the Court to favor regulatory authority over individual rights. Although the outcome remains uncertain, the momentum appears to be leaning towards the city.

Personal Reflections on Homelessness

In my early adulthood, I experienced a form of temporary homelessness often referred to as “couch surfing.” With limited couches available, I was fortunate to have stable employment and a vehicle to sleep in when staying with others became burdensome. I would park my car on the streets and rest in the back seat for several months. While I eventually secured stable housing, numerous potential setbacks could have prolonged my situation indefinitely.

Over the years, I have observed others in similar situations face vastly different outcomes, as individuals aiming to improve their circumstances sometimes find themselves sinking deeper into instability as their support systems falter.

While some may not categorize a few months of living in a car as severe homelessness, my firsthand experience taught me how easily such situations can escalate into prolonged displacement. This is often the onset of more chronic homelessness.

The prevalent narrative of chronically homeless individuals surrounded by refuse or drug paraphernalia is, in my experience, less common than that of recently homeless individuals striving to maintain what little they have left—be it a vehicle, a job, or a storage unit. However, those in transitional phases tend to be less visible. For every chronically homeless person struggling with addiction, many others (including families) remain temporarily in parks or library lots, hoping to regain stability. The journey back to a secure living situation is often fraught with challenges when lacking a permanent residence.

No singular narrative encapsulates the homeless experience; what matters is how we, as a society, choose to address this issue through policy and public perception. It is far too easy to place blame on victims, despite data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development indicating that 31% of the homeless population reports having a significant mental illness.

During my time without stable housing, I felt how swiftly such circumstances can impact mental and physical well-being. Homelessness transforms a person, and the longer one remains on the streets, the more diminished their confidence in their potential becomes. If I could convey one message to those who have never faced homelessness, it would be the profound toll it takes on self-worth and one's sense of humanity.

The Decision and Human Rights

The challenge of homelessness encompasses more than just a singular issue; it intertwines with various complex problems exacerbated by failures in our national response. While prohibiting public camping may appear sensible at first glance, the underlying context renders such regulations problematic. Arresting individuals repeatedly for merely existing in public spaces when no alternatives exist is not a viable solution; it merely sweeps the issue under the rug. Sadly, short-term solutions often exacerbate the situation.

Many believe that housing should be regarded as a fundamental right for all citizens, regardless of their circumstances. Although achieving this standard may be challenging, any progress towards it would represent a welcome shift from the current, seemingly hopeless trajectory characterized by overcrowded streets and despair.

Our treatment of society's dispossessed should always begin with compassion. Compassion is the minimum standard for humane treatment in a civilized society. By adopting a compassionate approach, we can reframe the conversation from one focused on economics to one centered on preserving lives. Compassion elevates the issue from one of inhumanity and neglect to one of acceptance and hope. Most individuals living on the streets crave understanding above all else, and camping bans highlight this disconnect, prioritizing minor regulations and temporary fixes over sustainable solutions.

The Path Forward for Homelessness in America

Regardless of the outcome in Grants Pass v. Johnson, it should serve not as a conclusion but as the inception of new efforts for homeless individuals nationwide. This case addresses the rights of the unhoused, but it also opens the door to discussions about viable solutions. Although the contested ordinances do not provide adequate solutions to homelessness, the attention drawn by this case could guide public discourse toward finding real answers that can ultimately provide housing for all.

Sources

• ABC News
• AP News
• GrantsPassOregon.gov
• HUDexchange.info
• League of Cities Amicus Brief, Grants Pass v. Johnson
• Multnomah County Joint Office of Homeless Services
• Newsnation
• NPR.org
• OPB.org
• Oregon Law Center
• SupremeCourt.gov
• The Daily Yonder