The outcome of Grants Pass v. Johnson is being closely watched by municipalities struggling with large homeless populations. | J. Scott Applewhite/APThe Supreme Court’s conservative majority sounded highly skeptical on Monday about lower court rulings that held an Oregon city’s ordinance prohibiting sleeping in public violated the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The court’s liberals questioned the ordinance’s focus on sleeping, suggesting that it really amounted to a criminal ban on being without a home. “How about if there are no public bathroom facilities?” Justice Neil Gorsuch asked. “Do people have an Eighth Amendment right to defecate and urinate?” “You’re not really attacking the punishments here,” Gorsuch told Kelsi Corkran, the lawyer for the homeless plaintiffs.
“We still need the flexibility and the common sense that would be provided under a more lenient interpretation,” Newsom said last week in response to a question from POLITICO. “That’s why we did the amicus brief. That’s why we’ll be tuning into the oral arguments on Monday.”
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: latimes - 🏆 11. / 82 Read more »
Source: CalMatters - 🏆 261. / 63 Read more »
Source: KPIXtv - 🏆 443. / 53 Read more »
Source: 10News - 🏆 732. / 50 Read more »
Source: latimes - 🏆 11. / 82 Read more »
Source: ForbesTech - 🏆 318. / 59 Read more »