Jonathan P. Baird lives in Wilmot.

During years working at New Hampshire Legal Assistance, I represented many homeless individuals. The reasons for homelessness were varied: eviction, job loss, divorce, domestic violence, and disability, among others. Lack of income always figured in. Circumstances were often beyond the control of the individual.

It was not unusual for the homelessness crisis to cause a mental health breakdown which compounded the depression and anxiety already being experienced. A shredded safety net often failed to provide needed assistance. Unless they could get counsel, a condition that many could not get because need outstripped capacity, people were on their own to sink or swim. Even with counsel, buying time might often be the best a lawyer could do.

Homelessness has been on the rise nationally. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, roughly 653,100 experience homelessness on any given night, with a 12% increase between 2022 and 2023. Nearly half of those homeless are sleeping outside.

So when the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in at the end of June on the matter of homelessness in the case of Grants Pass v Johnson it was a pivotal moment for homelessness advocates and all who care about homelessness in America. Unfortunately, as has been its pattern, the Supreme Court majority failed, by rendering a callous decision devoid of humanity.

By a 6-3 margin, the conservatives on the Court enforced a camping ban against involuntarily unsheltered residents. The city of Grants Pass, Oregon had passed two ordinances that prohibited camping on public property and camping in a car. “Camping” in the ordinances was defined to include remaining in a place where material used for bedding is placed to maintain a temporary place to live.

The ordinances made it a crime to be homeless. If you are homeless and sleeping within city limits and you use blankets, pillows and cardboard boxes for protection against the elements, you can be fined $295 for a first violation which escalates to $537 if it is not paid. After a second citation, you can get an order that is a ban from city property. You can also get 30 days in jail for criminal trespass and a $1,250 fine.

Homeless plaintiffs in Grants Pass had argued that the camping ban violated the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The Ninth Circuit, which covers Western states, including Oregon and California, had previously ruled that cities cannot punish people for sleeping outside without providing shelter options.

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

Shamir Darjee immigrated to Concord knowing no English. Now the 20-year-old just bought his family a house.

Squirrels, magic mushrooms and cat claws: A look at New Hampshire’s offbeat bills

Opinion: Let’s keep our forests as forests

‘Woefully unprepared’ hiker refused to leave Sno-Cat atop Mt. Washington

Update: Man arrested in Pleasant Street barricade incident in Concord

Thorne’s of Concord to close storefront, shift toward intimacy coaching and education

Your Daily Puzzles

Cross|Word

Flipart

Typeshift

SpellTower

Really Bad Chess

Grants Pass, a city of just under 40,000 people, has no public shelter. It only had a Christian mission that imposed a number of restrictions and required people to attend two religious services a day, a condition problematic for those not subscribing to that religious belief.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the Court majority, found no cruel and unusual punishment in the Grants Pass ordinances. His decision focused on the needs of cities, not the homeless. The justices found state and local officials can clear and punish homeless people for camping in public spaces even if shelter beds are full.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that “criminalizing homelessness can cause a destabilizing cascade of harm.” She wrote, “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. For some people, sleeping outside is their only option.” She goes on to say that punishing people for being homeless is “unconscionable” and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

The Court result makes it illegal for someone without a home to exist in a locale. No solution is offered. Overburdened cities and towns will be able to sweep people up and drop them elsewhere, out of sight and out of mind. Cities and town officials just want homeless people to go away and hide the visibility of poverty. They want a quick fix, using police. In this approach, the appearance of public order is the goal, not reducing the number of people without shelter.

As Peter Edelman has written, “the opposite of criminalizing poverty is ending homelessness.” Fines, arrests and jail time are costly and do nothing to solve homelessness. They have never helped one person out of homelessness.

In so many discussions I have had about homelessness, whether it is with liberals or conservatives, I have seen the tendency to blame the homeless for being in that situation, like they are guilty of some moral failing. Both liberals and conservatives maintain a ‘Not in My Back Yard’ attitude.

The prevailing attitude is to make it so uncomfortable for the homeless that they will voluntarily vacate and move on down the road. I see no difference between liberals and conservatives on this. As a society, we have normalized seeing thousands sleeping on the street. Too often our collective response is indifference to human suffering.

We need the political will to make safe and affordable housing a national priority. Two profound factors frame the current picture: a severe housing shortage and unaffordable rents. Any serious plan that tackles housing in America must address both.

The Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass moves things in the wrong direction. The Court demonstrates no sense of obligation to the neediest. We can expect more cities and towns will follow what Grants Pass did. In New Hampshire, Manchester just passed an encampment ban. Public order, not mercy and justice, define our High Court’s jurisprudence.