Grants Pass wins

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that banning camping in public places is permissible under the federal constitution. At least, it's not forbidden by the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. The vote was 6 to 3, along the usual lines. The opinion is here.

This probably won't make much difference in Oregon, because between the geniuses in the Legislature and the state Supreme Court, they'll likely find a way to torpedo any reasonable solution that muncipalities can come up with to address the destruction of public places by addicts and other campers. But at least the "advocates" will stop running to the federal courthouse for a while.

I'm no fan of Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, but he makes some valid points here:

    To be sure, and once more, a variety of other legal doctrines and constitutional provisions work to protect those in our criminal justice system from a conviction. Like some other jurisdictions, Oregon recognizes a “necessity” defense to certain criminal charges. It may be that defense extends to charges for illegal camping when it comes to those with nowhere else to go. See State v. Barrett, 302 Ore. App. 23, 28, 460 P. 3d 93, 96 (2020) (citing Ore. Rev. Stat. §161.200). Insanity, diminished-capacity, and duress defenses also may be available in many jurisdictions. See Powell, 392 U. S., at 536. States and cities are free as well to add additional substantive protections. Since this litigation began, for example, Oregon itself has adopted a law specifically addressing how far its municipalities may go in regulating public camping. See, e.g., Ore. Rev. Stat. §195.530(2) (2023). For that matter, nothing in today’s decision prevents States, cities, and counties from going a step further and declining to criminalize public camping altogether. For its part, the Constitution provides many additional limits on state prosecutorial power, promising fair notice of the laws and equal treatment under them, forbidding selective prosecutions, and much more besides.... All this represents only a small sample of the legion protections our society affords a presumptively free individual from a criminal conviction. But aside from Robinson, a case directed to a highly unusual law that condemned status alone, this Court has never invoked the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause to perform that function.