“I never looked at it like that.” What Cruz didn’t realize then was that living in a park in Grants Pass, Oregon, would place her in the middle of a national debate that will reach the Supreme Court on Monday about whether cities can respond to a spike in homelessness by punishing homeless people.
“Nobody wants to be out here,” said Cruz, who has since moved into a church where she also serves as a caretaker.
The debate about whether the ordinances apply to a class of people or to prohibited conduct will feature prominently Monday.
A 1962 Supreme Court decision found that a California law that criminalized drug addiction – as opposed to drug possession –amounted to a “cruel and unusual” punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
I just think that it’s so broad to say we’re going ticket you for just simply existing,” said Mary Ferrell, executive director of the Maslow Project, a nonprofit that works with homeless children in Grants Pass.
“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,” said Ed Johnson at the Oregon Law Center, who represents the plaintiffs.
It is urging the Supreme Court to block Grants Pass from “effectively criminalizing the status of homelessness,” but it also suggests the matter should be returned to a lower court for a case-by-case analysis of whether the individual people ticketed, in fact, had nowhere else to sleep.
For Cruz, the ticketing felt like harassment, an effort to nudge people experiencing homelessness out of the Grants Pass entirely.
Helen Cruz made her home a few years ago in a city park where she set up her tent for the sole purpose of being near the homes she cleans for a living but could never afford for herself.
The 49-year-old Cruz stated, “People see the irony of it.”. “I never gave it that perspective. “.
The question of whether cities can punish the homeless in response to a rise in homelessness is one that will be heard by the Supreme Court on Monday. Cruz was unaware at the time that living in a park in Grants Pass, Oregon, would put her at the center of this national controversy.
The justices will hear arguments on Monday regarding whether ticketing individuals who live on the streets is “cruel and unusual” and violates the Eighth Amendment, in the most significant appeal involving unhoused Americans to reach the high court in decades.
State and local authorities are keeping a close eye on the case because they are unsure of how to handle the increase in encampments and homelessness that has appeared in city parks and beneath bridges across the country. People who reside in those encampments are also following it because they find it alarming that efforts are being made to criminalize the populace rather than providing affordable housing and shelters.
Cruz, who has since relocated to a church where she also works as a caregiver, claimed that “nobody wants to be out here.”. We are aware that families with young children should visit the parks. We really don’t know where to go. No housing is available. “.
Inhumane and strange?
A report released in December by the Department of Housing and Urban Development stated that there was a 12 percent rise in the number of homeless individuals between 2022 and 2023.
This study indicated that over 650,000 Americans are homeless on any given night, with about 40% of them lacking proper housing.
The 38,000-person city of Grants Pass in southern Oregon reacted by stepping up the enforcement of anti-camping laws that forbid people from using “bedding,” such as sleeping bags or bundled clothes, while they are in public. The city claims that everyone is subject to the restrictions, not just those without a place to live.
Critics claim that only the homeless set up tents on sidewalks.
On Monday, there will be much discussion regarding whether the ordinances apply to a specific group of people or to prohibited behavior. A California law that made drug addiction illegal rather than drug possession was deemed to be a “cruel and unusual” punishment under the Eighth Amendment, according to a 1962 Supreme Court ruling.
“I understand how the decision-makers think. The Maslow Project is a nonprofit organization that assists homeless children in Grants Pass. Mary Ferrell, the executive director, said, “I just think that it’s so broad to say we’re going to ticket you for just simply existing.”. “The local perception is that the city simply does not want homeless people, ever. “.
According to city officials, the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment was intended to stop kings from the eighteenth century from imposing torture or harsh labor sentences, not to stop police officers from giving out tickets. They contend that homelessness is a problem for public health and safety rather than a constitutional dispute for the courts to resolve.
“The Eighth Amendment should not be stretched beyond its bounds and the federal courts should not be given jurisdiction over this urgent social issue,” attorneys for Grants Pass told the Supreme Court. “.
The city was declared ineligible to “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, when there was no other place in the city for them to go,” because the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the city. “.
According to the plaintiffs, a 2019 study in Grants Pass revealed that 602 people were homeless and 1,045 more were “precariously housed.”. There are incredibly few shelter spaces in the city at the moment.
Ed Johnson, the plaintiffs’ attorney at the Oregon Law Center, stated, “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.”.
“Shuffling people over shows no compassion.”.
Certain officials are in a precarious position as a result of the case. California Gov. Democrats Gavin Newsom and Ruth Bader cautioned the justices against making a blanket decision that would prevent the government from intervening in matters pertaining to encampments, even though they agreed last month that those who are homeless shouldn’t be treated as criminals.
In a nonpartisan brief, Newsom told the court, “There is no dignity in allowing people to die in dangerous, fire-prone encampments, and there is no compassion in stepping over people in the streets.”.
Also, the Biden administration has made an effort to tread carefully. It urges the Supreme Court to prevent Grants Pass from “effectively criminalizing the status of homelessness,” but it also recommends that the case be sent back to a lower court so that each case can be examined separately to determine whether the individuals who were issued tickets actually had nowhere else to stay.
Cruz said she moved out of the park more than a year ago, but she still finds it difficult to pay off the numerous tickets she received. She stated that after receiving a ticket, she would have to move and gather her belongings. The fine for every ordinance infraction is $295, and if it is not paid, it rises to more than $500.
Police may issue a 30-day park avoidance order after two tickets. That order carries a 30-day jail sentence for violators.
Cruz believed that the tickets were an attempt to drive homeless people out of Grants Pass completely and that they were harassing them.
However, she declared, “I’m not leaving.”. Furthermore, I refuse to be moved by anyone. “.
