Now let's talk about the homeless crisis
and some news from federal court this
week that greatly affects homels
policy all across the West Coas.
There is a reason that police ct
simply arrest someone for campig
on public property at any time .
It's because of a key court rul.
So let's explain how we got her.
The case is called Martin V The
City of Boise. As in Boise, ID.
You've heard of it?
And it's been used to fight
camping restrictions in several
cities on the West Coast.
In 2018, the 9th Circuit Court f
Appeals ruled a city cannot chae
someone with a crime or give tha
ticket for sleeping in a public space
if there's a lack of shelter be.
In other words,
nowhere else for that person to.
The judges declared that charging someone
with a crime for sleeping outside when
they have no other choice is rey
a violation of the 8th Amendmen,
meaning it qualifies as cruel
and unusual punishment.
So when there are headlines
about camping bans,
that Martin V Boise ruling
is often what legally stands
in the way of enacting those.
It's also a key component in
Portland's daytime camping ban
that hits the books tomorrow.
In order to criminalize campingn
public property with citations d
the threat of jail time and fin,
police need to prove that there
are shelter beds available.
When the homeless person refuses
to move their tent,
they cannot just arrest them on the spot.
And that's because of Martin V Boise.
And that brings us to the
headline from this week.
Yesterday,
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
refused to rehear a case.
The ruling stopped the City of Grants
Pass OR from criminally punishig
homeless people who sleep in puc
places when they have nowhere else to go.
Last year,
a three judge panel from the 9th Circuit said
the city cannot enforce that camping ban.
So the city appealed,
asking for the full court to hear the
case instead of just three judg.
But according to yesterday's 155 page order,
a majority of the court's 29 jus
said no to a full court hearing.
And now,
according to The Oregonian,
the lawyer representing Grants
Pass says no problem,
the city's going to take the
petition to the US Supreme Court
and ask them to review the case.
It's worth noting that this case
is taking a very similar path
to that Boise case.
Boise wanted the full court to review
the ruling against it as well,
but the 9th Circuit rejected the idea.
Then they brought it to the US Supreme Court,
which denied the petition to
review its ruling. So it stands.
So will the grants.
Will the Grants Pass case suffea
similar defeat in our nation's highest court?
Well,
time's going to tell,
but there are a few passages from the
recent 155 page order from the h
Circuit that are worth mentioni.
The two judges who wrote the majority
opinion said the Grants Pass cag
ban indeed violates the 8th Amendment,
and their choice to not hear the case
again is consistent with preced.
Okay.
But a senior 9th Circuit Judge o
was joined by 14 other judges dd
not mince words when he wrote a
statement against this recent ruling.
It is easy enough for us,
behind marble walls and sealed doors,
to dismiss the consequences of our decisions.
But for those who call
these communities home,
who must live by the criminal violence,
narcotics activity and dangerous
diseases that plague the homeles
encampments buttressed by our decisions,
the consequences of our judicial
arrogation are harder to accept.
The judge says the original Boie
ruling invented a federal constitutional
right to sleep in public proper,
sleep on public property,
and thinks the 8th Amendment
argument is wrongly applied
when it comes to camping bans.
Another Ninth Circuit judge who
wrote his own dissent said the e
and Grants passed rulings, quot,
use a misreading of Supreme Cout
president to require unelected federal
judges to act more like homeless
policy czars than as Article 3 judges
applying a discernible rule of .
He went on to say the Boise rulg
handcuffed local jurisdictions trying
to respond to the homeless cris,
while the grants passed ruling e
now places them in a straitjack.
It's no secret the homeless cris
boiled over on the West Coast years ago,
but it sure feels like tempers
are starting to flare a bit in
the federal courts.
The two judges who wrote the recent majority
opinion rebuffed those dissenting claims,
saying they were mischaracterizg
the rulings with exaggerations.
They said the ruling does not
allow homeless people to sleep
wherever and whenever they want,
saying that when there is space in shelters,
places can ban sleeping anywhere in public,
and if someone refuses shelter,
that person can be punished.
So when you wonder about the legality and
careful wording of Portland's camping ban,
it's because of cases just like this one.
Localities are forced to meander around
the rulings and opinions to try and get
a handle on the crisis on the streets.
As far as the Grants Pass case is concerned,
we're going to be watching closy
to see if the US Supreme Court
decides to take up the case.
It's a process that surely
will not happen anytime soon.