The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether homeless people have a constitutional right to camp on public land when they have nowhere else to sleep.

The court will review the decision on appeals from California and Western city governments. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decisionargued that it is cruel and unusual punishment for cities to deny homeless people a place to sleep.

As a result of the Ninth Circuit's ruling, public officials in California and eight other Western states under its jurisdiction face greater scrutiny and legal challenges when clearing encampments or relocating homeless people. will be faced with.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and city attorneys for Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and Phoenix joined 20 government and business groups asking the high court to restore authority over sidewalks and parks, or at least clarify the law. was included in.

City attorneys said it remains unclear whether encampments will be removed from sidewalks and parks if those living on the streets reject offers to move into temporary shelters.

They blame the worsening homelessness crisis in West Coast states on the Ninth Circuit's rulings in cases in Boise, Idaho, and Grants Pass, Oregon. California alone is “home to half of the nation's unsheltered population,” they said. Their appeal in the Grants Pass vs. Johnson game.

The court said it expected to hear arguments in the case in April and issue a decision by the end of June.

In the past, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against inflicting “cruel and unusual punishment” has been applied by the Supreme Court to limit government responses to people convicted of crimes. be.

Homeless advocates point to a 1962 ruling that limited what is considered a crime.

Robinson v. California, Supreme Court Repealed part of California law Therefore, drug addiction became a crime. Lawrence Robinson was arrested by Los Angeles police, who said his arm was discolored with “numerous needle marks.” He was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to 90 days in jail.

The Supreme Court later overturned his conviction, ruling that it was cruel and unusual to punish someone for the “disease” of “drug addiction” rather than for using or selling drugs.

In 2006, this ruling was cited by a Ninth Circuit judge to strike down a Los Angeles sidewalk ordinance that gave police the power to arrest people who were “lying or sleeping” on the street. The three-judge panel said homeless people were being punished simply because they didn't have a place to sleep.

Rather than appeal to the Supreme Court, the city settled the lawsuit and agreed not to enforce the ordinance at night.

In 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued a sweeping ruling invalidating a Boise, Idaho, ordinance that gave police the power to arrest or fine people who sleep or camp on public property.

The justices stated that the Supreme Court's Robinson decision states that “The Eighth Amendment prohibits states from punishing involuntary acts or conditions when they are an unavoidable consequence of a person's status or existence.'' He said that he had established the principle that

Grants Pass, a city of 38,000 people in southern Oregon, is estimated to have between 50 and 600 homeless people. Following a lawsuit by homeless advocates, a federal judge and the Ninth Circuit struck down the anti-camping ordinance, saying the city did not have “adequate shelter” for all homeless people.

“We believe that the City of Grants Pass cannot, pursuant to the Eighth Amendment, enforce anti-camping ordinances against homeless people for the mere act of sleeping outdoors or in their cars. “We affirm the court's decision, on a night when there is nowhere else to go in the city,” Judge Rossilne Silver said in a 2-1 decision.

The court's conservatives moved to have the entire Ninth Circuit reconsider the decision, but fell short by a 14-13 vote.

In their appeal to the Supreme Court, city attorneys highlighted the real problem of homelessness.

“Across the West, hundreds of thousands of people are camping in public spaces, with tents and belongings overtaking sidewalks, parks and trails,” they said. Cities want to help people in encampments receive the services they need while ensuring the safety of our communities, but public encampments and the drug overdoses that inevitably accompany them, We are finding it harder to respond to murders, sexual assaults, diseases, and fires. ”

The closest the Supreme Court came to ruling on this issue was in 1982. A group called the Creative Nonviolent Community asked for permission to demonstrate in Lafayette Square, across from the White House.

The request also included a “symbolic tent city” that would sleep about 50 people.

The Parks Department granted a permit for the demonstration but denied a request to sleep in the park. Advocates filed a lawsuit arguing that the camping ban violates First Amendment free speech protections. They lost before federal judges, won in the U.S. Court of Appeals, and finally lost 7-2 at the Supreme Court in 1984.

writing for the court; Justice Byron White said the First Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions. About the “time, place, and method” of the demonstration. “There is little difficulty in concluding that the Park Service may prohibit overnight sleeping in the parks involved here,” he wrote.