The Supreme Court will decide whether local anti-homeless laws are ‘cruel and unusual’
“The issue before the Court is whether cities can punish homeless residents simply for existing without access to shelter,” Ed Johnson, a lawyer for homeless people who challenged the Grants Pass ordinances, said in a statement. “Nevertheless, some politicians and others are cynically and falsely blaming the judiciary for the homelessness crisis to distract the public and deflect blame for years of failed policies"
@theceoofanarchism that's a misframing of the question before the Court, though.
The issue before the Court is NOT whether cities can punish homeless residents simply for existing without access to shelter, but rather (as the public record shows)
> The question presented is:
> Does the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?
@volkris Sounds like saying the same thing laws against "camping" are cruel and unusual so punishing the homeless for them is punishing them for simply existing. No need to attack stating it without dressing it up.
@theceoofanarchism when it comes to court cases and Supreme Court cases in particular the details are vital.
The Court rules on specific questions, and those specific rulings are what lower courts use in future proceedings, and what lawmakers can address if we need to have laws changed.
Let me emphasize, it's not a question about whether *the law* is cruel and unusual. That's not the question before the Court, and the Court generally doesn't make such rulings.
The question is whether certain *enforcement actions* are unconstitutional.
One big reason this distinction matters is because it speaks to similar enforcement actions regardless of which laws they may (or may not) be based on.
You see how the different in the question can really matter?
