General Discussion

Ms. Toad

(38,668 posts)

12. Nope. That's not how it works.

Mon Dec 16, 2019, 02:14 PM

Dec 2019

All the Supreme Court did was decline to hear the case. Declining to hear the case says nothing about how it would decide the case on the merits, if it ultimately does agree to hear such a case.

The 9th Circuit declared that criminalizing sleeping on the streets was unconstitutional (which is still far short of saying individuals have a constitutional right to sleep on public property outdoors - it merely says they cannot be criminally punished for doing so).

It is a step in the right direction, but nowhere near as big a step as your caption would suggest.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

SCOTUS: Homeless people have a constitutional right to sleep on public property outdoors [View all] fleur-de-lisa Dec 2019 OP

Good decision. They're right. MineralMan Dec 2019 #1

Its sad commentary that this is actually a good decision. That Boise wants to make the homeless ... marble falls Dec 2019 #2

It's an obvious decision. It's too bad the question ever came up. MineralMan Dec 2019 #3

It's not that they don't provide shelter SoCalNative Dec 2019 #5

Yes, just as I said. There will always be such homeless people MineralMan Dec 2019 #6

In this case, the shelters were full More_Cowbell Dec 2019 #11

:) It's brought up. Many people have always refused Hortensis Dec 2019 #21

I think this ruling says is legal to sleep on streets when homeless shelters are full Beringia Dec 2019 #15

Here's a statement from the court that makes it pretty clear: MineralMan Dec 2019 #17

I don't think you can make that conclusion Beringia Dec 2019 #23

There are many factors involved in the "having a place to sleep." MineralMan Dec 2019 #24

This . Absolutely, this. AllyCat Dec 2019 #46

We had someone who works with homeless people speak at one of our community eds LeftInTX Dec 2019 #33

Crushing. Cannot imagine that kind of fear and anxiety AllyCat Dec 2019 #47

Does this ruling invalidate vagrancy laws? no_hypocrisy Dec 2019 #4

Vagrancy laws are generally unconstitutional as written. MineralMan Dec 2019 #7

You are correct, but occasionally, someone actually wanted to sit on that bench MH1 Dec 2019 #26

You know, I've never encountered any situation like that. MineralMan Dec 2019 #30

We have had different experiences. MH1 Dec 2019 #31

And yet, those homeless people are people all the same. MineralMan Dec 2019 #32

I agree with you, except I think a more expansive understanding of the other side MH1 Dec 2019 #34

I know the other side already. I also know the side of the homeless. MineralMan Dec 2019 #36

Odd. Almost all cities have adopted the deliberately unsleep-able bench design. Voltaire2 Dec 2019 #42

Recently, yes, in parks. MH1 Dec 2019 #48

It's not a ruling, in the sense you are thinking of. They merely declined to take the case. Ms. Toad Dec 2019 #13

Thank God. They're finally taking a bite out of the criminalization of homelessness. Aristus Dec 2019 #8

Good Hekate Dec 2019 #9

I'm amazed that the Roberts court didn't intervene on behalf of cruelty Orrex Dec 2019 #10

Nope. That's not how it works. Ms. Toad Dec 2019 #12

yes. this is the correct interpretation stopdiggin Dec 2019 #14

They may also be looking for a Circuit conflict. n/t Ms. Toad Dec 2019 #27

Good news, homeless shelters can be awful places for the homeless Johnny2X2X Dec 2019 #16

Yes. Almost all shelters are run by non-governmental organizations. MineralMan Dec 2019 #20

A large shelter chain in LA (!) won't allow undocumented people tishaLA Dec 2019 #41

Perhaps criminalizing excessive greed would help OhNo-Really Dec 2019 #44

The hard-cores may just be ruling in favor of the anti-taxers, but Hortensis Dec 2019 #18

Powerless?... lame54 Dec 2019 #19

This is a Federal problem, not a local problem. hunter Dec 2019 #37

Tell that to Salt Lake City lame54 Dec 2019 #38

It was in many ways a self-selected population. hunter Dec 2019 #43

I was surprised it wasn't already posted in LBN Polybius Dec 2019 #22

They're worried about "residents' health and safety concerns" WhiskeyWulf Dec 2019 #25

That's good. Where do they expect these poor souls to go. onecaliberal Dec 2019 #28

Wow... Newest Reality Dec 2019 #29

Low hanging fruit budkin Dec 2019 #35

That right... to sleep on public property... albacore Dec 2019 #39

Now we'll see how cities try to skate around tishaLA Dec 2019 #40

"Address residents' health and safety concerns"? Really? AllyCat Dec 2019 #45