Supreme Court torn over Oregon's homeless: Kavanaugh says they shouldn't be 'micromanaging' cities - while progressives push to halt ban on vagrants sleeping outside

The Supreme Court has been divided over a challenge to the constitutionality of ordinances that fines people who are homeless from using blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for protection from the elements while sleeping within city limits.

A town in southwest Oregon made the case Monday, arguing the ordinances merely bar camping on public property by everyone, while challengers contended the laws effectively make it a crime to be homeless.

The city of 39,000 known as Grants Pass recently started fining people $295 for sleeping outdoors to combat homeless encampments springing up in the city's public parks, and the rising housing costs that came as a result.

The court is expected to decide the case by the end of June. Most appeared inclined to uphold the series of local ordinances.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh cited cities' autonomy, as he and others pointed out how the state has some of the highest rates of homelessness and drug addiction in the US. Some have referenced the state of cities like San Francisco, where no such systems are in place. 

A Grants Pass, Oregon, police officer issues a citation to a homeless woman camped in a city park on Monday. The town has appealed a district court ruling that barred officials from fining locals for sleeping outside

Most of the court appeared to be in favor of upholding the ban, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh (pictured), who cited cities' autonomy, among other things

'The law here, how does it help if there's not enough beds for the number of homeless people in the jurisdiction?' Kavanaugh, 59, asked on Capitol Hill Monday, questioning how they employ such a law since it has less shelter beds than homeless.

'When you get out of jail, what's going to happen then?' he pressed further, citing how similar laws have failed. 'You still don't have a bed available so how does this help?' 

He added: 'If...[they] end up in jail for 30 days, then get out, [they're] not going to be better off than you were before in finding a bed... if there aren't beds available.'

That argument held sway in a separate case, Martin v. Boise, in 2018, when a panel of judges from federal court officials in Idaho ruled the city Boise violated the constitutional rights of homeless people by imposing criminal penalties for sleeping and camping outdoors because the city did not have enough beds. 

Raising concerns dissidents could again use such a defense, the conservative also pointed out that imposing criminal penalties on a homeless person for sleeping in a public space does not necessarily ensure their circumstances will be improved.

He also warned that solving homelessness is a complicated issue, asking aloud at one point, 'I think one of the questions is, who takes care of it on the ground' he asked at one point.

He also warned about federal courts 'micromanaging' policy - emphasizing the far-flung, isolated nature of the case.

'The law here, how does it help if there's not enough beds for the number of homeless people in the jurisdiction?' Kavanaugh asked Monday, questioning how the employ such a law since it has less shelter beds than homeless. Pictured, a homeless person in Grants Pass last month

A used needle is seen on the ground on Friday, March 22, not far from the elementary school. Supporters of the fine have cited how the state or Oregon - a notorious Democrat stronghold -  has some of the highest rates of homelessness and drug addiction in the US

Volunteers helped dismantle tents to move an 80-year-old man and a woman blind in one eye, who risked being fined for staying too long, at Fruitdale Park - a hive for homeless activity - in March

A volunteer provides food, medical care and other basic goods to the hundreds of homeless people living in the town parks, as the amount of homeless in the town of 39,000 have caused housing prices to skyrocket

Other conservatives asked how far Eighth Amendment legal protections should go, as Grants Pass appeals a district court decision that barred officials from enforcing its public camping ordinances at night and during the day without 24 hours' notice. 

'How about if there are no public bathroom facilities, do people have an Eighth Amendment right to defecate and urinate outdoors?' asked Justice Neil Gorsuch, to which Justice Department attorney Edwin Kneedler replied that other laws should cover such a situation.

He said people shouldn't be punished just for sleeping outside, but also disclaimed the ruling striking down the Grants Pass law as unconstitutional - since the state didn't do enough to determine whether those sleeping on the streets and park of Grants Pass were 'involuntarily homeless.'

Gorsuch and other justices also pondered whether other aspects of state or federal law could address the issue, without setting a new standard of sweeping legal precedent in process. 

The case began in the rural town last year, when it began fining people for sleeping outside as the cost of housing escalated and tents sprung up in the city's public parks last year - often near local schools. 

In October, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals declared anti-camping ordinances in San Francisco violated the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits 'cruel and unusual punishment'. 

The circuit court ruling also restricted interventions in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Washington, and lastly, Oregon, while a separate ruling from the court halted bans on homeless people 'using a blanket, pillow, or cardboard box for protection from the elements'.  

Activists gathered outside Supreme Court as the justices debated, mulling a challenge to rulings that found punishing people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment

Activists demonstrate at the Supreme Court as the justices consider a challenge to rulings that found punishing people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday

Homelessness in the US rose 12 percent last year to its highest reported level, as high rents and a decline in pandemic assistance combined to create a pseudo housing crisis where buying has become drastically more difficult

That came after Governor Gavin Newsom's office filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to clarify 'that state and local governments can take reasonable actions to address the homelessness crisis creating health and safety dangers for individuals living in encampments and our communities'.

Theane Evangelis, a lawyer representing Grants Pass through the proceedings, disagrees.

'The tragedy is that these decisions are actually harming the very people they purport to protect,' she told Fox News in January in anticipation of take the case to the country's highest 

'We look forward to presenting our arguments.'

On Monday, she argued that Grants Pass, 'like cities nationwide...relies on camping laws to protect its public spaces', and thus should be allowed to hand out the fines.  

The court of appeals, she claimed, tied the hands of the town and other municipalities in the 9th Circuit 'by constitutionalizing the policy debate over how to address growing encampments.'

On Monday, a lawyer representing the city told the justices that Grants Pass, 'like cities nationwide,' 'relies on camping laws to protect its public spaces.' California currently reports over 170,000 homeless individuals with 7,800 in San Francisco 

The San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law under its holding that banning camping in places without enough shelter beds amounts to cruel and unusual punishment

Gov Gavin Newsom insists he takes responsibility for California's spiraling homelessness crisis, where drugs are openly dealt on the streets of the area which is blighted by homelessness

In September, Gov Gavin Newsom's office filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to clarify 'that state and local governments can take reasonable actions to address the homelessness crisis creating health and safety dangers for individuals living in encampments and our communities' 

In October, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals declared anti-camping ordinances in San Francisco violated the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits 'cruel and unusual punishment'. San Francisco saw 620 reported overdose deaths in the first nine months of the year

But Justice Kavanaugh, again, was hesitant to believe that reversing the circuit's decision and allowing for the ordinances would make a difference.

As this was occurring, hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the Supreme Court Monday morning to advocate for more affordable housing, holding silver thermal blankets and signs like 'housing not handcuffs.'

Homelessness in the US rose 12 percent last year to its highest reported level, as high rents and a decline in pandemic assistance combined to create a pseudo-housing crisis where buying has become drastically more difficult.

More than 650,000 people are estimated to be homeless, the most since the country began using the yearly point-in-time survey in 2007. 

Nearly half of them sleep outside. Older adults, LGBTQ+ people and people of color are disproportionately affected, advocates said.

In Oregon, a lack of mental health and addiction resources has also helped fuel the crisis- something cited by Kelsi Brown Corkran Monday, as she made her case representing the challengers.

She stated that since Grants Pass defines a 'campsite' as anywhere a homeless person is within the city with a blanket, it is 'physically impossible for a homeless person to live' in the town without facing fines or jail time.

The order barring the city from enforcing its ordinances, she claimed, is enough to address its homeless problem.

On Monday, most of the justices - Kavanaugh include - appeared to be leaning toward a narrow ruling in the case, citing debate over homelessness in Western states like California. An encampment in Washington, DC, this past winter is here

Theane Evangelis, a lawyer representing Grants Pass through the proceedings, On Monday, she argued that Grants Pass, 'like cities nationwide, relies on camping laws to protect its public spaces', and thus should be allowed to hand out the fines

On Monday, most of the justices - Kavanaugh included - appeared to be leaning toward a narrow ruling in the case, citing debate over homelessness in Western states like California, and the sweeping precedent it would instill

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out sleeping is a biological necessity, before stating that people will simply be forced to do it outside if they can't get housing

Sleeping is also a biological necessity, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out - stating that people will simply be forced to do it outside if they can't get housing.

'Where do we put them if every city, every village, every town lacks compassion and passes a law identical to this? Where are they supposed to sleep? Are they supposed to kill themselves, not sleeping?' she said.

The San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law under its holding that banning camping in places without enough shelter beds amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

On Monday, most of the justices - Kavanaugh included - appeared to be leaning toward a narrow ruling in the case, citing debate over homelessness in Western states like California.

The region, which includes LA and San Francisco, is home to one-third of the country's homeless population.

The court is expected to decide the case by the end of June.