Struggling With The Status Versus Conduct Distinction? So Are The Supreme Court Justices – Above the Law

It
is
usually
fair
game
for
governments
to
regulate
or
criminalize
the
things
that
people
do.
If
you
get
caught
drinking
alcohol
in
public,
there
might
be
some
reasonable
consequences.
Things
get
a
lot
more
sticky
when
you
regulate
what
people
are
—
locking
someone
up
because
they
are
an
alcoholic
gets
you
into
some
status
territory
that,
according
to

Robinson
v.
California,
is
anathema
to
the
Constitution.
The
fine
line
between
punishing
behavior
and
punishing
status
is
coming
to
a
head
in
a
Supreme
Court
case
that
will
set
rules
for
where,
and
if,
homeless
people
can
sleep
outside.
The
justices
aren’t
holding
any
punches
with
their
questions
either.
From

Reuters:

The
justices
heard
arguments
in
an
appeal
by
Grants
Pass,
Oregon
of
a
lower
court’s
ruling
that
enforcing
the
city’s
anti-camping
ordinances
against
homeless
people
when
there
is
no
shelter
space
available
violates
the
U.S.
Constitution’s
Eighth
Amendment
prohibition
on
cruel
and
unusual
punishments.
…
“Where
do
we
put
them
if
every
city,
every
village,
every
town
lacks
compassion
and
passes
a
law
identical
to
this?
Where
are
they
supposed
to
sleep?
Are
they
supposed
to
kill
themselves,
not
sleeping?”
liberal
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
asked
Theane
Evangelis,
a
lawyer
for
Grants
Pass.

“This
is
a
complicated
policy
question,”
Evangelis
responded.

Sotomayor
interrupted
her,
asking,
“What’s
so
complicated
about
letting
someone,
somewhere,
sleep
with
a
blanket
in
the
outside
if
they
have
nowhere
to
sleep?”

Did
you
get
the
feeling
that
Evangelis’s
response
to
Sotomayor’s
question
was
a
calculated
sidestepping
of
a
common
sense
ethical
problem
presented
by
Oregon’s

anti-homeless
anti-camping
ordinances?
Because
“What
else
are
they
supposed
to
do,
kill
themselves?”
might
be
a
rhetorical
question
for
us,
but
a
sizable
number
of
our
neighbors
up
north
are
open
to
suicide
as
a
way
to
deal
with
the
homelessness
problem:

Kagan’s
take
on
the
issue
seems
similar,
as
she
stated
that
Oregon’s
ordinance
appears
to
criminalize
a
status.
Roberts’s
language
is
couched
in
status
framing
as
well:

“You
can
remove
the
homeless
status
in
an
instant
if
you
move
to
a
shelter,
or
situations
otherwise
change.
And,
of
course,
it
can
moved
the
other
way
as
well,
if
you’re
kicked
out
of
the
shelter
or
whatever,”
Roberts
added.

Discussing
the
case
with
this
framing
is
worlds
better
than
if
the
justices
led
with
goofy
questions
like
“Well,
if
people
—
anyone
really,
doesn’t
matter
if
they’re
rich
or
not
—
start
sleeping
in
parks,
who
is
going
to
pick
up
the
mess?
Think
about
our
parks!”
…which
is
the
exact
direction
Oregon
went
in
response:

Evangelis
asked
the
justices
to
overturn
the
lower
court’s
ruling,
which
she
called
a
“failed
experiment
which
has
fueled
the
spread
of
encampments
while
harming
those
it
purports
to
protect.”

Roberts
asked
Evangelis
what
would
happen
in
Grants
Pass
if
its
ordinances
remain
blocked.

“The
city’s
hands
will
be
tied.
It
will
be
forced
to
surrender
its
public
spaces,
as
it
(already)
has
been,”
Evangelis
said.

I
don’t
know,
prioritizing
parts
of
parks
over
living
breathing
human
beings
being
able
to
get
some
shut
eye
seems
cruel
to
me,
and
that’s
before
you
factor
in
how
many
members
of
the
homeless
population
in
Oregon
are
children
and
teenagers:

How
is
it
not
cruel
to

not
let
some
teenager
who
has
nowhere
else
to
go
catch
some
Zs
in
a
park?
That’s
a
threshold
question
that
can’t
be
simply
answered
with
“this
is
a
complicated
policy
question.”

US
Supreme
Court
Scrutinizes
Anti-Camping
Laws
Used
Against
The
Homeless
[Reuters]

Earlier:

SCOTUS
To
Hear
Case
On
Constitutionality
Of
Functionally
Banning
Homeless
People
From
Being
In
Public

---

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.