Homelessness is a major problem, and it is a complex one. People become homeless for different reasons, and they have different obstacles to returning to the ability of obtaining their own shelter. Two of the most common are mental illness and addiction. These two problems are particularly difficult, as the conditions themselves may block the person’s willingness to accept and participate in the treatment needed to fix the problem. Sometimes an arrest is exactly what a person needs to provide the needed motivation. Fifty-six years ago, Justice Thurgood Marshall recognized similar considerations when he wrote the plurality opinion in Powell v. Texas. That opinion rejected the notion that the Eighth Amendment prohibited punishing an alcoholic for being drunk in public because the conduct was an involuntary result of his status. Such a constitutional mandate was too simplistic a way of dealing with a complex and difficult social problem.

Even so, the Ninth Circuit took the step that the Powell plurality rejected with regard to laws penalizing camping on public property as applied to the homeless. Today, the Supreme Court reversed that decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion of the Court. Three Justices dissented. CJLF filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the city.

A key legal issue in the case involved the status and reach of an even earlier case, Robinson v. California. In that case, the Court declared a California statute unconstitutional because it made criminal the status of being addicted to drugs as opposed to the act of possessing or using an illegal drug. Oddly, the Court invoked the Eighth Amendment for this proposition, an argument only briefly mentioned by Robinson, rather than the Due Process Clause, which was Robinson’s main argument. Continue reading . . .