SCOTUS agrees to hear case on homelessness
Outside the realm of SORNA and SORR, homelessness is often debated over whether it is truly voluntary or involuntary. That is irrelevant in the world of SORNA and SORR where the debate centers on whether it is harder to convince someone to rent to you, or how to find a location that meets vague and often hidden obstacles.
In any of these examples, if one becomes homeless it can be further complicated by municipal ordinances banning or preventing homelessness, or camping, on public properties. Fines and additional citations can be seen as the ultimate form of doubling down on a difficult situation. According to a recent case in the 9th Circuit, can even be cruel and unusual punishment.
The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear an appeal of that case. The 9th Circuit Federal Court ruling in City of Grants Pass v Johnson that issuing citations and fines for public camping was cruel and unusual punishment has left the Circuits with conflicting opinions and direction. The City has appealed to SCOTUS with a plea that consistency amongst the Circuits is needed.
Essential to the case are precedents that allow governments to punish behaviors, but not the status of the individual. The debate will hinge on SCOTUS’s weight provided to the status of being involuntarily homeless versus the act of committing homelessness on public property when that has been lawfully deemed to be a finable public nuisance.
Several cases in Florida and the 11th Circuit have ruled in the opposite manner to City of Grants Pass. In Joel v Orlando, the existence of a large shelter that had not experienced full occupancy, amongst other reasons, supported an opposite ruling.
While City of Grants Pass is not a case directly impacting being a registrant, registered people are often homeless, transient, indigent and if not, increasingly facing housing insecurities. The right win here could prevent additional challenges from being inflicted on a growing portion of this population.
In looking at more information at this case. I would pay attention to if the Supreme Court says you can’t punish people simply for their status https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10872202325524770184&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr of being homeless. This case cites Robinson a lot and Powell v. Texas both of those again talk about status of being, and how you could not criminalize one status.
So let’s say the people who are housing challenged win and they say it’s cruel and unusual punishment. It might lead to a potential avenue we could explore.
Go to number 12 on this page “(12) http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0943/Sections/0943.0435.html The Legislature finds that sexual offenders, … The designation of a person as a sexual offender is not a sentence or a punishment but is simply the status of the offender which is the result of a conviction for having committed certain crimes.”
Key word status ” the designation of a person, as a sexual offender is not a sentence or a punishment, but is merely the status of offender, which is result of a conviction, having committed certain crimes.
So the Florida legislator is saying the designation of a person as a registrant is merely a status, so this Supreme Court case is saying can’t a homeless person be arrested simply for their status as homeless?
If this case prevails I don’t see why we can’t used the status angle as well. How can we be continually arrested simply for the status of being an offender.
We still have a year before they even hear the case but it’s something to ponder.
Thanks for the info @Eugene. Appreciate you staying abreast of SCOTUS cases for the forum and community at large.
No problem
I’m noticing parallel problems with state and federal laws regarding abortion rights and sex offense laws. Both have established federal mandates without precise boundaries and regulations . Yet they expect states to standardize there laws without any guidelines. Both expect the states to uphold there regulations without the federal government having to do anything to make sure everyone is following the same rules. Every state has regulations and laws written up differently and enforced differently. Yet even if you move from one state to another the new location can enforce the old location rules plus add rules to it as if it were a new conviction. Has this been challenged in the courts?
Is it better to be homeless but free or be a slave where housing is provided?
Sometimes it’s a toss up. This case is about cities and their ordinance law making.
Cities are not recognized as a sovereign in the Federal Constitution… PERIOD.
That document lists only two. Yet SCOTUS must act here precisely because of that fact.
The people suffer by granting Cities and towns too much authority, but its their own damn ignorant doing by disregard for constitutional discipline. Lots of corruption happens at the local level. The powers of Cities and towns are also supposed to be regulated and restrained by state law, but In reality rarely get checked of that power by state authorities. It does happen, just not nearly enough. The homeless in WI freeze to death without it.
More info on SCOTUS case:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/justices-take-up-camping-ban-case/
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/city-of-grants-pass-oregon-v-johnson/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-175.html
In the brief to the Supreme Court this paragraph jumped out to me on page 5
“On one side seven circuit courts and 17 state courts of last resort have held that the government may punish acts (like drug use and sex with minors) even if they can’t punish mere status (like being a drug addicted or being a pedophile) On the other side, the Ninth and Fourth Circuits, as well as two state courts, have extended the Eighth Amendment to conduct that purportedly follows from a status.
On page 15. “This dispute over restrictions on public camping is part of a larger conflict over the Eighth Amendment’s scope. A few courts, including the Ninth and Fourth Circuits, have interpreted this Court’s decisions in Robinson and Powell as holding that the government cannot punish conduct that necessarily fol- lows from a status. In contrast, seven federal courts of appeals and 17 state courts of last resort have rejected that approach, drawing a bright line between conduct (which can be punished) and status (which cannot).”
Page 20
Seven circuits have followed the Powell plural- ity in holding that Robinson applies only to status crimes and does not immunize conduct supposedly associated with a status: In this precise context of a public-camping or- dinance, the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the Powell plurality that “[a] distinction exists be- tween applying criminal laws to punish con- duct, which is constitutionally permissible, and applying them to punish status, which is not.” Joel, 232 F.3d at 1361-1362.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-175/275911/20230823153037814_Grants%20Pass%20v.%20Johnson_cert%20petition_corrected.pdf
Is being continuously arrested for failure to register, is that conduct or status? A lot of times FTR to do nothing wrong that would no be punishment to others but yet since there a registrant they get violated for such and such law, how can it be conduct when it’s merely status? This case could be really beneficial to us if they expand what cruel and unusual is.
I could be wrong but I take the Grants Pass case to be about what is Cruel and unusual in regard to a status of an individual vs conduct of that status.
Then on https://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/sops/predatorDefinition.jsf
3) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND PURPOSE; LEGISLATIVE INTENT.–
d) It is the purpose of the Legislature that, upon the court’s written finding that an offender is a sexual predator, in order to protect the public, it is necessary that the sexual predator be registered with the department and that members of the community and the public be notified of the sexual predator’s presence. The designation of a person as a sexual predator is neither a sentence nor a punishment but simply a status resulting from the conviction of certain crimes.
Thoughts could this ruling carry even more weight to us?
A loss at SCOTUS will embolden municipalities to criminalize homelessness throughout the U.S.
Municipalities are already trying to do that. Instead of addressing the root causes of homelessness and offering solutions to those that do fall into homelessness. There are people who really believe that incarceration is the answer. An out of sight out of mind mentality, or NIMBY. In Volusia County, registrants aren’t allowed access to the county funded shelter. The facility has had numerous issues including financial and the fact that the county built it across the street from the county jail, in between DeLand and Daytona.
i’d like to point out that I have conducted TWO surveys, one in 2016 and one just last year, where I have asked individuals on the registry about homelessness.
In both surveys, responses to the question found that roughly 3% of Registered Persons were currntly homeless at the time they filled out the survey, with nearly twice that number having experiencing homelessness within the past 12 months. Specifically, the percentage of RPs in the 2016 survey and this survey shows a consistent pattern of homelessness (current homelessness rate, 3.28% in 2016 vs 3.45% in 2023).
By contrast, about 0.18% of the total US population is currently homeless, as noted in key findings of the Point-In-Time (PIT) count and Housing Inventory Count (HIC) conducted in January 2022. So the homeless rate just for those currently homeless is roughly 20 times the rate of the average American.
So the Florida Legislative body has moved on to the next target of their banishment goal… the homeless https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/1365/billtext/filed/pdf
Will the homeless agree to these rules? they’ll be forced to live in one part of the city and be threatened with arrest if they live anywhere else outside the confines of the homeless “prison yard” located very far away from everything hence, they cannot lower property values.
I see Florida is setting its self up for a residency restriction lawsuit for a potential plaintiffs if they force the homeless to certain areas. And with that hopefully that will allow us a plaintiff to challenge residency restrictions since research article after research article has shown that residency restrictions push homelessness onto registrants.
It says I may bring a lawsuit against any county that’s in violation of this ordinates What if all the homeless registrant people in the state of Florida want to attend an FAC meeting will they have available housing for all registrants who are homeless in that area because clearly we couldn’t go to the other shelters it’s no secret that many openly declare no registrants allowed here, so therefore we should be able to sue for lack of beds and lack of shelter space. Since they accommodate some of the homeless, they would have to accommodate all the homeless wouldn’t they ? These laws are nothing but a status crime that leads to a conduct charge.
Cities are going to be forced to build one of these camp into every county in order to get around not banishing homeless people there at all, so they’ll be saying you can live in this county but you have to live in this area however, our registrants gonna be able to live in that area because we’re hardly living in any other areas, maybe hopefully this will lead to us challenge the residency restrictions once and for all.