Supreme Court: Punishing homeless for outdoor sleeping not unconstitutional

June 28 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Friday that enforcement of camping regulation laws against homeless people in Grants Pass, Ore., does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment banned by the Eighth Amendment.

" The Court cannot say that the punishments Grants Pass imposes here qualify as cruel and unusual," the opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch said.

"The city imposes only limited fines for first-time offenders, an order temporarily barring an individual from camping in a public park for repeat offenders and a maximum sentence of 30 days in jail for those who later violate an order."

Justices Sotamayor, Kagan and Jackson dissented.

"Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many," the court's majority opinion said. "So may be the public policy responses required to address it. At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not."

The opinion concluded, "The Constitution's Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this nation's homelessness policy."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the dissent, "Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. For some people, sleeping outside is their only option.

"The city of Grants Pass jails and fines those people for sleeping anywhere in public at any time, including in their cars, if they use as little as a blanket to keep warm or a rolled-up shirt as a pillow. For people with no access to shelter, that punishes them for being homeless."

She called that "unconscionable and un-constitutional."

"Punishing people for their status is "cruel and unusual" under the Eighth Amendment," Sotomayor added.

Cities across the country, as well as homeless people and homeless rights advocates, were watching the case as localities struggle with how to deal with homeless encampments.

The 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, with conservative justices upholding the punishments against homeless encampments and liberal justices dissenting.