Helen Cruz, who makes a career cleaning houses for a living but could never afford to buy a home of her own, elected to set up camp in a city park a few years ago because she wanted to be near the clients’ homes.
Cruz, 49, acknowledged that others perceive the irony in the situation. “It was a new perspective for me.”
Cruz had no idea that her decision to live in a Grants Pass, Oregon park would put her at the center of a national discussion that will culminate on Monday at the Supreme Court, over the question of whether towns may address an increase in homelessness by penalizing those experiencing it.
On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether the practice of issuing citations to individuals living on the streets constitutes “cruel and unusual” treatment that breached the Eighth Amendment. This is the most consequential appeal involving unhoused Americans that has reached the court in decades.
As a result of the nationwide upsurge in homeless people and the proliferation of makeshift camps under bridges and in city parks, local and state authorities are keeping a careful eye on the matter. Those who live in the encampments and are worried about attempts to criminalize them instead of constructing shelters and cheap housing are also following it.
“Nobody wants to be out here,” Cruz added. She has since relocated to a church, where she also takes care of others. Parks are places where families may enjoy quality time together. The problem is, we are currently stranded. Housing is not available.
Shockingly cruel and strange?
The number of individuals suffering homelessness rose by 12% from 2022 to 2023, as reported in a December report by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
According to that research, over 650,000 people in the US are without a place to sleep each night, with over 40% of that total lacking sufficient shelter.
A 38,000-person community in southern Oregon called Grants Pass has responded by cracking down further on anti-camping legislation. These rules prohibit individuals from using “bedding,” which can refer to anything from sleeping bags to wrapped clothing, when sleeping in public places. The city claims that the bans are applicable to all citizens, not simply those without homes.
Some people think that the only individuals who set up tents on sidewalks are those who are homeless.
On Monday, the question of whether the ordinances target specific groups or illegal activities will take center stage. The Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that a California statute that made drug addiction a crime (rather than mere possession) violated the Eighth Amendment because it was a “cruel and unusual” punishment.
I get the legislators’ point of view. Mary Ferrell, the head of the nonprofit organization Maslow Project, which helps homeless kids in Grants Pass, expressed her opinion that it’s too general to assume that people will be ticketed for merely existing. “People are feeling that the city isn’t interested in having homeless people around, plain and simple.”
Claiming that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment was meant for kings imposing torture or harsh labor terms in the 18th century, not for police officers handing out tickets, city officials make their case. They argue that homelessness is more of a threat to public health and safety than a question of constitutionality.
According to Grants Pass’s legal team, “the solution” would be to avoid going beyond the scope of the Eighth Amendment and putting this critical societal issue in the hands of the federal courts.
For lack of an alternative location within the city, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals found that the city could not “enforce its anticamping ordinances against homeless persons for the mere act of sleeping outside with rudimentary protection from the elements, or for sleeping in their car at night.”
The plaintiffs use a 2019 report that indicated 602 homeless persons and 1,045 people who were “precariously housed” as evidence. At the same time, there is a severe lack of shelter space in the city.
According to Ed Johnson of the Oregon Law Center, who is representing the plaintiffs, “There is no difficulty in determining that the people who were living outside in Grants Pass were doing so because they had nowhere else to go.”
“Stepping over people shows no compassion.”
Some government officials are in a precarious situation because of the lawsuit. Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom of California spoke before the Supreme Court last month, arguing that the criminalization of homeless people is wrong but cautioning the judges against a wide finding that would limit government action against encampments.
As part of his non-partisan brief, Newsom stated, “There is no compassion in stepping over people in the streets, and there is no dignity in allowing people to die in dangerous, fire-prone encampments.” Thus, he took no side in the argument.
Even Biden’s administration has attempted to tread carefully. The document calls on the Supreme Court to prevent Grants Pass from “effectively criminalizing the status of homelessness” and adds that the case should be sent back to a lower court to determine if each person who was penalized indeed had nowhere else to sleep on a case-by-case basis.
Cruz said that even after leaving the park over a year ago, she is still having trouble paying off the several tickets she received. According to her, after receiving a ticket, she would be required to gather all of her possessions and relocate. A $295 fine is imposed for each ordinance infraction; if not paid, the fee rises to over $500.
If you get two tickets in a row, the police can tell you to stay away from parks for a month. The penalty for disobeying that order is thirty days in prison.
A campaign to force homeless people off the Grants Pass altogether, the tickets seemed to Cruz like harassment.
Nevertheless, she declared, “I am not leaving”. Plus, I refuse to be expelled by anyone.