Supreme Court To Decide If Being Homeless Can Be A Crime
Jun 3, 2024
auto_awesome
Vox Senior Correspondent Ian Millhiser discusses the Supreme Court case on criminalizing homelessness, exploring legal complexities, Eighth Amendment debates, and policy implications. The podcast delves into the Court's role in addressing societal issues and the need for legislative actions to combat housing shortages.
The Supreme Court is debating the criminalization of homelessness, challenging past rulings like Robinson v. California.
City argues that status crimes like homelessness are not protected by the Eighth Amendment, potentially expanding criminalization scope.
Debate includes individualized assessments for homeless individuals and policy-focused solutions over legal approaches for addressing homelessness.
Deep dives
Supreme Court Case Involving Criminalization of Homelessness
The podcast episode explores a case before the Supreme Court regarding the criminalization of homelessness. Ian Milheiser from Vox discusses the case known as Grants Pass, where the Supreme Court is evaluating whether it's permissible to make homelessness illegal through a web of ordinances that indirectly target homeless individuals. The Ninth Circuit found that the state of being homeless cannot be criminalized, drawing parallels to past decisions like Robinson v. California, which stated that criminalizing addiction without an overt criminal action is unconstitutional.
Interpretations of the Eighth Amendment and Status Crimes
The city of Grants Pass argues that status crimes, such as homelessness, are not protected under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. They contend that the government can attach appropriate punishments to any status, challenging past rulings like Robinson that establish limitations on criminalizing certain status without associated criminal actions. This argument questions the long-standing precedent regarding status crimes and raises concerns about potentially expanding the scope of criminalization.
Different Approaches to Homelessness Policies
The discussion delves into various approaches to addressing homelessness, including the Supreme Court's consideration of individualized determinations for homeless individuals. The episode highlights Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Gorsuch's stance that the homelessness issue should be left to local governments and state legislatures to handle as a policy matter. Amy Coney Barrett suggests a case-by-case assessment for involuntarily homeless individuals, emphasizing the need for specific considerations rather than broad injunctions.
Implications of Criminalizing Status Crimes
Criminalizing the status of being poor or having certain urges, like being a suspected pedophile without any criminal actions, raises significant legal and ethical concerns. Removing the precedent set by Robinson, which requires a criminal act for prosecution, could lead to invasive government actions, such as forcing psychological exams based on mere suspicions. This shift challenges the core principles of criminal law, as the precedent of not prosecuting based on mere status has historical roots and protections under various constitutional clauses.
Policy vs. Legal Implications in Addressing Homelessness
The debate on criminalizing homelessness reflects a broader policy issue of addressing homelessness through legislation rather than relying on court decisions. While legal arguments like the necessity defense surface in the discussion, the practicality and costs of enforcing such laws beg the question of whether legislative solutions for housing and city regulations are more effective. The intersecting issues of homelessness, urban housing policies, and constitutional challenges highlight the inadequacies of solely legal approaches without comprehensive policy changes.
Today we're joined by Vox Senior Correspondent, Ian Millhiser! In his reporting, Ian focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. Ian gives us an excellent and comprehensive breakdown of Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case that could be decided any day now. As usual with this Court, the question is: How scared should we be?
