Two of the 29 active appellate judges on the 9th Circuit argued that this was a narrow ruling. A majority agreed Grants Pass went too far, especially by banning homeless people from using sleeping bags. But appellate judges focused on the core question of how controlling cities can be in regulating homelessness when shelter is not available. This Wednesday, though, a deeply divided 9th Circuit voted to uphold an earlier decision that homelessness ordinances in Grants Pass, Oregon, are “cruel and unusual.” The differences between that city’s laws and San Diego’s are many.
But it goes even further, forbidding homeless people from sleeping outside in large parts of the city, in particular within two blocks of K-12 schools, existing shelters, transportation hubs and waterways, even if all shelters are at capacity. San Diego’s controversial new law bans homeless camps in public areas at all times when shelter beds are available. The Supreme Court let the ruling stand in 2019 without comment. The appeals court ended a nine-year legal fight over the measure in 2018 and held that homeless people cannot be punished for sleeping outside on public property in the absence of adequate shelter alternatives. Circuit Court of Appeals - binding on nine Western states - related to a law in Boise, Idaho. San Diego’s new encampment ban was written in response to rulings by the 9th U.S. Now another federal court ruling shows such a rude awakening may also be ahead of those who believed the claims about the legality of a crackdown on homelessness enacted last month on a 5-4 vote by the San Diego City Council at Mayor Todd Gloria’s urging. But courts are not rubber stamps for the wishes of elected officials. Last week’s Supreme Court ruling that President Joe Biden had no constitutional authority to forgive $430 billion in college student loans was a rude awakening for millions who were already counting on seeing those savings.
0 kommentar(er)
