SCOTUS allows laws against homeless encampments.
The Supreme Court's latest decision has major implications for the homelessness crisis
I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”
Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.
Today's read: 13 minutes.
Happy Fourth of July!
Tangle will be off tomorrow and Friday in observance of the Fourth of July holiday. We’ll be back in your inbox on Monday, July 8. To all our U.S. readers, have a great Fourth!
In the meantime we’ll be working on putting out some content from our live event in New York City earlier this year. You can check out the trailer below.
Quick hits.
- The Food and Drug Administration approved a new Alzheimer's treatment from drugmaker Eli Lilly that aims to slow the progression of the disease in its early stages. (The approval)
- Rep. Lloyd Doggett (TX) became the first House Democrat to publicly call on President Joe Biden to drop out of the 2024 presidential race following last week’s debate. (The call)
- The Supreme Court declined to hear challenges to an Illinois ban on certain types of semi-automatic weapons, attachments, and magazines while lower courts decide the cases. (The decision)
- Moderna won a $176 million contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to develop an mRNA vaccine for pandemic influenza as bird flu continues to spread through dairy farms. (The contract)
- At least 121 people were killed in a crowd crush at a religious gathering in northern India. (The latest)
Today's topic.
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. On Friday, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 along ideological lines to uphold ordinances in the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, that outlaw sleeping and camping in public places while using materials like blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for warmth or shelter. The decision overturns a lower court’s determination that such laws are unconstitutional and grants greater authority to local governments to address homelessness in their communities. The Supreme Court’s decision returns the case to the lower courts, which will consider separate arguments about Grants Pass’s laws.
Reminder: In 2018, homeless residents of Grants Pass challenged the constitutionality of the city’s public camping laws and won their case before a federal district court. The city appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which upheld the district court’s ruling by citing Martin v. City of Boise, its 2018 decision that determined laws penalizing people who have nowhere else to stay for sleeping in public violate the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition on “cruel and unusual” punishments. The city appealed to the Supreme Court, which took the case and heard arguments in April.
We covered the 9th Circuit’s ruling here and recapped oral arguments at the Supreme Court here.
The challengers centered their arguments on the Supreme Court’s 1962 decision in Robinson v. California, which found that the government could not punish a narcotics addict solely because of his "status" as an addict. The challengers argued that bans on public camping effectively punish the “involuntary status” of being homeless, noting that Grants Pass has no public homeless shelter (though a private religious organization does operate one). The court’s majority disagreed, ruling that Grants Pass’s ordinances target the act of camping on public property rather than an individual’s status.
