Is
it
cruel
and
unusual
to
punish
homeless
people
for
being
homeless?
Yes.
That
would
be
the
entire
article
if
America
was
an
actual
nation
that
cared
about
its
citizens
rather
than
an
arms
dealing
corporation
that
happens
to
have
people
in
it,
but
alas.
Vagrancy
laws
do
exist
to
punish
activities
that
homeless
people
often
have
to
resort
to
in
order
to
survive,
like
sleeping
outside.
And
while
those
laws
are
undoubtedly
cruel,
the
courts
have
not
seen
fit
to
elevate
them
to
the
level
of
cruel
and
unusual
punishment.
But
the
Supreme
Court
is
about
to
consider
a
more
complicated
situation
in
City
of
Grants
Pass
v.
Johnson:
whether
or
not
it’s
fair
game
to
throw
homeless
people
in
jail
for
not
having
a
place
to
go
to
at
night,
if
the
town
isn’t
willing
to
provide
any
kind
of
shelter
to
keep
them
off
the
streets
in
the
first
place.
From
ABA
Journal:
“This
case
is
really
about
whether
the
Constitution
protects
unhoused
people
against
punishment
when
there
is
no
shelter
or
housing
available
to
them,”
says
Antonia
K.
Fasanelli,
the
executive
director
of
the
National
Homelessness
Legal
Center,
a
Washington,
D.C.-based
group
that
filed
an
amicus
supporting
the
homeless
plaintiffs
who
challenged
the
Oregon
city’s
policies.
“Fundamentally,
we
know
that
criminalization
only
makes
homelessness
worse.”
This
reads
as
cruel
to
punish
a
person
for
merely
being
homeless,
and
it
is
unlikely
that
a
$295
fine
for
sleeping
outside
or
seizing
their
tent
is
going
to
help
them
get
off
the
streets.
It
is
very
likely
that
it
will
help
them
find
their
way
in
to
a
jail
cell
though.
It
shouldn’t
take
the
highest
court
to
say
that
encouraging
recidivism
in
the
people
with
the
fewest
resources
is
anything
but
cruel,
but
the
lawyers
in
favor
of
arresting
the
homeless
emphasize
a
different
part
of
the
legal
spin.
“Homelessness
is
complicated.
The
constitutional
question
presented
in
this
case
is
not,”
Seattle
City
Attorney
Ann
Davison
says
in
an
amicus
brief
for
her
city
and
a
dozen
others,
along
with
city
and
county
associations.The
9th
Circuit
imposed
a
rule
that
says,
“local
governments
must
first
provide
an
alternative
place
to
go
before
telling
someone
they
cannot
stay
where
they
are,”
Davison
wrote.
“That
rule
is
a
rigid
policy
judgment.”
The
constitutional
question
of
cruelty
gets
really
simple
if
you
just
ignore
the
results.
To
see
the
9th
Circuit’s
decision
as
a
judicial
overstep
without
engaging
with
the
problem
of
criminalizing
the
status
of
being
homeless
is
a
red
herring.
Making
it
criminal
for
homeless
people
to
sleep
even
if
they
had
no
other
viable
option
for
being
somewhere
else
is
a
step
removed
for
arresting
someone
for
standing
while
homeless.
Which
is
clearly
the
direction
the
state
would
go
in
if
they
got
the
leeway
—
imagine
the
Homeward
Bound
buses
without
the
“Bound”
part.
I’d
suggest
they
name
it
Bound
2,
but
nobody
wants
to
hear
Ye’s
mouth.
If
SCOTUS
gives
Oregon
the
green
light
to
discriminate
on
the
basis
of
status,
which
one
do
you
think
they
will
ramp
up
policing
on
next?
My
money
is
on
being
poor
in
public.
Supreme
Court
Will
Consider
Whether
Criminalizing
Homelessness
Violates
Eighth
Amendment
[ABA
Journal]
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.