As I’m writing this post the Supreme Court is hearing arguments over whether or not the president has absolute immunity from prosecution. It’s a headline grabber to be sure, but nobody actually thinks even this court will grant the nation’s chief executive a license to kill. They clearly took the case to delay Trump’s national security and January 6 case past the elections and in that regard, mission accomplished.
The more substantive case before the court was heard earlier in the week in the case of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, a case that could criminalize poverty.
Grants Pass v. Johnson will decide whether cities and towns have the right to criminalize homelessness by imposing fines for outdoor camping. By local ordinance, Grant’s Pass imposes a $295 penalty for sleeping on public property, a fine that can compound with repeat violations and can lead to a 30-day jail sentence and a fine of $1,250 dollars. There’s a special kind of cruelty fining someone 1200 dollars for not being able to afford rent. There’s no aid or services attached to enforcement, the point of the law is to make life for homeless people so onerous that they move along somewhere else. Judging by the reaction of the justices to the arguments, a majority seem to think kicking someone while they’re down is perfectly fine.
Not surprisingly, neither the attorneys for Grant’s Pass nor the justices themselves mention what should happen to these unhoused folks, most of whom are American citizens, if every municipality in the land were to adopt similar regulations. I suppose they would need paddle out to international waters or learn to levitate in order to get some sleep.
Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow us on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and on Facebook at NJ.com Opinion. Get the latest news updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.com’s newsletters.
