Good News: Today, The Supremes Effectively Re-Confirmed That Homelessness, Without More, Is No Crime.

I suppose, in the age of Trump [now mercifully drawing to a close], what was long obvious, from the face of the Bill of Rights. . . more than occasionally needs to be re-stated, since Trump seems largely unable or unwilling to grapple with the Constitution's commands.

During 2019,Trump has repeatedly advocated razing homeless encampments, and arresting occupants for "vagrancy" [i.e., not a crime since the mid-1960s] primarily in California -- a state whose policies he generally disfavors. He has asserted [alternatively] that homelessness is -- and/or should be -- a crime. Both of these opinions of his are wildly ignorant. The Supremes have long protected the 'status' of poverty, without more, from being converted into the "conduct" of some ill-defined crime. . . like vagrancy, disorderly conduct, or trespass.

It was against this backdrop, that the city of Boise, Idaho attempted to arrest Mr. Martin, an individual sleeping in the city, on public property, when no other shelter was available to him. That the city may not constitutionally do. Both the federal trial court and the Ninth Circuit so held, entirely unsurprisingly. Boise asked the Supremes to weigh in. The high court has declined to do so, without any opinion. So a right to be poor exists -- and no state or city may criminalize sleeping outside, on public land, without more. Here's a bit from the homeless peoples' legal briefs:

. . . .The Eighth Amendment prohibits the criminalization of engaging in “innocent,” “life-sustaining” conduct -- such as sleeping -- as applied to homeless individuals who otherwise “do not have a single place they can lawfully be.” Pet. App. 63a. At a minimum, however, petitioner [Boise, Idaho] points to no conflict between the decision below and any majority holding of this Court.

Petitioner’s asserted conflicts with the California Supreme Court and other courts of appeals, meanwhile, are so tenuous and unconvincing that even petitioner presses them only half-heartedly. . . . That appeal is particularly remarkable because the Ninth Circuit’s holding does no more than command what petitioner’s own current ordinances already ostensibly require. . . .

Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019)

Onward -- and so it goes. we must burn electrons, into the night, to keep Trump's odious lies, which seek to curtail all civil liberties. . . from taking root. Strive mightily to be be excellent to all humans [and pets] you meet, on the street, in the woods, or on the beach. Out.

नमस्ते