Supreme Court seeks to make homelessness illegal
Homeless people living on a broken sidewalk near a busy street is increasing in US cities. Their existence is harsh and constantly disrupted, as they must remain alert to avoid losing their possessions or being forced to move again. According to support service providers for the homeless, these individuals are the unfortunate result of decades of failed national policies , such as a broken mental health system and foster care system that have left many without proper support. Some become homeless due to addiction or substance misuse.
Possible changes in US law could further complicate life for the already vulnerable population. In 2013, Grant Pass Oregon passed an ordinance making it illegal to camp or stay overnight on public property. Although an appeals court rejected this law, it has been taken up by the Supreme Court while other states and urban areas, including Los Angeles County (with over 75,000 homeless residents), continue supporting camping bans. Advocates for homelessness argue that criminalizing those who live on the streets will not solve anything given space constraints in jails and lack of suitable alternatives.
More than 650,000 Americans experienced homelessness at some point last year alone, marking one of the highest numbers recorded since data collection began nearly two decades ago.
Eric Tores from the National Homelessness Law Center in Washington DC explains how crucial this issue is before the Supreme Court which needs clarity concerning whether cities can punish those experiencing homelessness when there’s no alternative available, such as emergency shelter facilities — something he believes would constitute cruel and unusual punishment under constitutional laws if enforced otherwise.
Tores emphasizes that most cases involving homelessness do not involve personal choice; instead stem from structural issues such as a lack of affordable housing options coupled with rising rent costs nationwide, leaving half of renters unable to afford basic necessities after paying monthly rent expenses alone; hence rendering them more susceptible to eviction, ultimately leading to potential homelessness situations.
Cities advocating against these laws argue back, stating that constitutional rights don’t apply here despite clear evidence pointing out its applicability concerning humane treatment standards required when dealing with vulnerable populations like those experiencing homelessness.
In conclusion: Regardless of legal arguments presented before The Supreme Court regarding legality versus effectiveness debates surrounding current efforts aimed at addressing America’s growing number(s) of chronic instances resulting from structural inequality, factors should take precedence over mere punitive measures targeting individuals without providing viable solutions first-hand