Laws prohibit speciconduct in debt and are essential to Public Health and safe. The night circuit ties cities hands by constitutional lysing the policy debate over how to address growing encampments. Its holding that the ace amendment barsaws passed for three reasons. Rst, the cruel and unusual punishment clause governs which punishments are permitted, not what conduct can be prohibited. Second, no precedent supports the ninth circuits rule. Respondents abandon itsnce and they misre robinson to bar any punishment for invry conduct thats linked to a status. Robinson held only thats cannot outlaw the status of drug addiction. It made clear they can prohibit conduct like drug use. This court should notrite robinson six decades later. The ninth circuits ap has proven unworkable. The eighth amendment does not tell courts who is in via involuntary homeless, what shelters adequate what time, place and manner reons are allowed but in 35 cou several courts now deciding everything from the exact size of campsites in san rafael to the adequacy of emptyat specific shelters like the Gospel Rescue Mission. Cities are struggling to imply shifting standar the field. This court should revere ssent and the ninth Circuit Court exnt which has fueled the threat of encampments while g those it purports to protect. I welcome the first question. Do you consider these criminal penalties . They are both, Justice Thomas. There is mental trespass d civil. Is that invin this case . Yes, there is. To what extent . Have any of the parties here been subject to criminal trespass . They have been enjoying. They do here. Therefor recidivists attendees. Which party has been held accounfor criminal trespass . None of the individuals were currently in the case. Whats involved in this case . For logan and johon, the civil penalty. Is that the anticamping or what is it . Yes, it is. Is that civil or criminal . The camping ordinances symbol is civil embers several and repeat offenders we are not talking abo that yet. Have we applied the eighth not the cruel and unusual . Punishment flaws. What will the city do if you dont hear it will have to surrender public spaces. Beds are going on use. People are not getting the help they need. The city is under injunction here its uno rely on these basic ordinances. In the circuitecision, cities like grants pass have no guides about how they can navigate this very challen areas to regulate what the city can do in public spaces. Unused beds are less than 100 . And there are thousands of home . I believe is many 600 and grants pass. But there is less than 100 beds. Let me stop yoment. You are not asking us to think robinson was wrongly decided and should not be extend but we dont think the court needs to overturn that. Assuming itir, it prohibit a dish prohibit prohibits you fm iminalizing homelessness. U n say only Homeless People loosely about your will be arrested thats the testimony of your chief of police. If you read the crime, its only seven you sitting there sleeping in public on his way to you dont arrest babies who have blanketstheir heads. You dont arrest people who sleeping on the bchs they tend to do i i been there a while. You only arrest people who dont have a second home, is that correct . Who dont have a home. These laws are generally applicable thats what you want to s give me one example because youre Police Officers couldnt and they explicitly said that if sohas another home, has a mend its out there and happens to fall asleep, they wont be arrested. Full asleep or som on that. Joint appendi number 98 is an example of a citation. What we are getting at here is that these laws regulate conduct of everyone. Criminalizes homelessness. W that thats what you say it if i look at th record, its a the grants pass policy very clearly says that beieless is not a crime. I know thats what you say but you are enforcing this only against the homeless. I would suggest you look at one brief and let me see if i can find it. I will find it later and just mention it. Is you seem to start by to ask saying that the eighth amendmt is limited to forms of punishment and to the nature punishment, the proportionality sue. There is also a number of amicus briefs that layout from the magna carta to the founding roh state laws, throu weems watches a which was in 1910, throughrolater in the century that throughout all of that, both the english, american colonies, the discourses have meorm up or endment jurisprudence. Eir eighth you are asking us to ignore all of that history. No, we are not. E are saying is this case does not implica proportionality. We are not asking the court to take a position whether its a proper inquiry under thth amendment. I suggest you are because the old because you see the only amendment is former puni. Ighth in those cases, and in our history, we have said that certain punishments cannot be and the court hass looked at if a particular punt issidered too extreme for categorically terms of the Death Penalty in some cases, the work looks it whether a lesser punishment would be acceptable. For the inquiey are focusing on punishment, only what the respondents are asking this court to do is extend o you have hotels that are valued at 250,000 in your city . Just answer yes or no. I dont know. Lets assume because even in new york city which may be the mo expensive city in the nation or close to ire are hotels that are less thanhafor at that price. If a homeless person had that kind of money, dont you think they would stay in a hotel . The difficulty here is that this rule that the respondents are ing rests on whether someones conduct is we are talking about conduct so i want to talk about how this completely distinguishes i so taking robinson as a atus of homelessness . Inalize the have a couple of point that. Its just a simple question. Robinson does not address that. I think its completely diishae. Could you criminalize the i dont think homelessness is a status like drug addiction. Homelessness is a status, is i disagree hat becausea home. It is so fluid and different, people experiencinelessness might be one day without shelter and the next day with. The federal definition i the period where you dont have a home in youre homeless, is that a status . Can you criminalize that . No, its no you could criminalize just melessness. Hats quite striking that you think you can criminalize just homelessness. We are not saying homelessness is a status. Eighth amendmentnot focus on this. Itreally simple question, can you credit a lot cize homelessness and yo suggesting we could. Im not saying could you criminalize it . I think theld be due process and vagueness problems. I dont think theres an e amendment problem because that s a limitedision where the holding was solely about a disease of addiction. The court was very clear about distinguishing between addiction and possession. Ou are right that its a different statuswas involved inobinn but robinson made clear that there was a category of kids up for status offenses work which were different from conduct offenses. When you started, we are criminalizing ndt. To tell you the truth, this would uestion whe of course we cant criminalize a status b there is conduct here. Then i was going to say what is the conduct here . You didnt say that, you said you could criminale en the status of homelessness. That suggests that youre off on the wrong track and thinking about this i i thi the point where we are disagreeing h about whether the eighth amendment is the right framework for this. The eighth amendmenwathe framework in robinson. Im taking robinson as a given where robison said the eighth madman protects you against status based crimes. t know what the question is. I think robin itself and the Justice Marshall plurality and poured and powered the discussion about that. The conduct is establishing a campsite. I didnt think that was the conduct. I thought the only conduct here was sleeping outside with a blanket. It is the condu establishing a campsite which incl making a bed with bedding another gupuggest something different. They suggest a tent and tent camps. Your ordinance does not just prib that. Yo oinance prohibits the Single Person who is homeless so it doesnt havenother place to sleep, thats a status. Dont list asleep. Single version sleeping instead in public with the blanket is what i understand your says your statue to do . Tatute does not say anything about homelessness. Its very important that it applies to everyone. I got that but its a Single Person with the blanket and you dont have to have a tent or a camp. Sleeping inc is a blanket. Considered conduct in this corking clark discussed that. You could say brehi is conduct, to buto you wouldnt think its ok to criminalize breathing in public. And for a person who has no place to go, sleeping in plic is like breathing in public. Even the federal regula prohibit even sleeping. Dont require an image or not necessary federal regulations. This is conduct that is understood by jurisdictions onwide and the federal government to be conduct is prohibited this is a superrd policy problem for all municipalities. If you were to come in here and say we need certain protections to keep our streets safe and we cannot have people eeng in any place they want and we cant haveent cities cropping up, that would create. Your ordinan ss as to a person and ive sent you think itgenerally applicable but we only come up wh isroem for a person who is homeless who has a status of homelessness, o has no other place to sleep. Your statue sayshaperson cannot take himself a hself only and c te a blanket and sleepeplace without it being a crime. It just seems like robinson. It seems you are criminalizing a. It is not and we agree this is a very difficult policy question. Can you answer why it is not . Justice kagan is laid out one of theenti robbins was which is you are making a distinction between conduct and status. Can you explain why thi status . Thats what was misn robinson and thats what we have here and thats why the law was so unique. Itppeared that robinson actually hurt you and i hope she will the following sentenc it seems cru unusual to punish people were asked to bid tish beta human need unlike robinson, you have this is true disease to radio drugs anntial he culpable acts that relate to that, we are talking about sleeping that is universal, that basic function. What i guess i dont under stand this in this circumstance, why that particular state is being considered conduct theurse of punishment . That illustrates the line if you look at biological necessities at a person needs to do, the ninth circuits decision in this area would allow can i give you a hypothetical . Suppose the relative ordinance prohibiting eating on p property rather than sleeping or camping and the city forery rational reasons determined that whene eat outdoors, he reads problems with tra rodents and the like. It bans eating in Public Places and it punishes violators. Just as here, that seems generally fine because most peave arrived they go to most people have as something they have to eat in public because they are unannounced and can affo to go to a restaurant. Is your argument the same would it just whats happening is you are only punishing certain people who cant do it privately. I take for a moment that re not saying the law draws lines on any sort ofational bases or equal protection . When people eat in public, there is trash and roden problems. The city says what we will do is we will say no eating in public. What im concerned about from your argis the suggestion, you call conduct what we have had have operations is that peoplee able to afford doing this thing thats a basic human they are not punished for by people who dont have any other do it in public are the ones who are being targeted by this statute area i think the eighth amendment is the wrong o look at it. Some might have a due process challenge the law like that there in my hypothetical, peop going to jail because they are eating in public. Wise the eighth amendment not implicated . You would have a necessity dense. On that point, i think we are toodge the defense. About where whether its the eighth or 14th ent. Do you concede that there were instances in which necessity defense long recognized would apply eating inublic and sleeping in pur other things like that . I agree but in the case of camping, it recognizes that necessary trend so it was state law. Thats why are able to address the needs of whs issue raises. For something under oregon state law, a person could raise that defense under the necessity of incident does not month, the think its done enough already. Let me ask you about oregon law. Once there w threshold concern. I understand oregon has enacted this very issue. Eems to address im trying to understand why this is the why. It codifies martins rulsa something about all regulation of this nature have to objectively reasonable andime in time, place and manner with regards to people its parenting homelessness. It seems like the state is already precluded grants pass so why do we need to weigh in on at . It hasnt. Both sgree that this has not moved and there is no state law challenging this case t that standard is very different from margins. What about avoidance . Wouldnt our principle be that dont need to reach the cotionality of this issue if there is another possible way of resolving it because e state has addressed it . Tte law is very differd we believe our law satisfies. Ct that the states acting heres a good thing. We agree that states should be able to make policy and weigh the need to reverse martin is so critical because laws like ours really do serve as an essential purpose. They protect the health and safe everyone its not safe to live in on in ennts. We see whats happening. Ere are the harms of the mpment themselves on those in them and outside. We know the federal government has ed encampments in the capital in mcpherson so this is an urgent problem. Also there are downstream effects of all other things that flow from it. It is very important here to understand that the state laws is it yourrgument the eighth amendment has nothing to y about how a City Response to such problems echo if the city decided it would e homes people, very extreme but it would solve the problems youre talking about. Do wee an eighth amendment issue in that circumstance . You look at the punishment. That would be both cruel and unusual, wouldnt it . Yes. Why not just yes to that. Let me ask a question about the scope of your nce. This criminalizes sleeping with the blanket at a minimum, right . Yes. After this decision may be after martin before that, there werewestern about whether fires or campfires and tents. Can lk about what the scope of that is . Does it make it difficult for us to do liuse fires. The argumen that its a biological necessity to sleep outside, the respondents argue a blanket is necessary in oregon and some might argue a tent and a fire is ary north dakota so the eighth that mama doesnt give us anyrs to it city cannick cannot prohibit. Its really administrative as well as for courts to administer. We have nothi to do with that was exempted under the District Courts injunction and circurt to not require that. Court did not require. We are talking only about sleeping with a blke so lets narrow it to what it is , i agree there might be other cases in the circuit that are notnal. D i dont mean to throw aspersions at those holdings but some of them are not permitting time and restrictions. Lets go beyond that, here you arnotcluded from prohibiting fires youre not precluded from rivetg tense. What is at issue is are you prohibited from having someo wear a blanket. Anywhere icity. Your intent was to remove as stated by your mayor, the intent t rove every homeless person and give them no public space to sit down with a blanket or lay down with a blanket falsely. I would likddress that point. Why dont you answer the basic question. Its not about fires, its not out tense, its about not being a time and place restriction about eliminating choices. Spaces on streets and in parks whenedding materials, when huma living in those conditions if we think thats compassionate. Neither is providing them with nothing. We alleviate that situation. This is a difficult policy situat where do we them iy city, village and town lac compassion. Passes a law identical to this . Where are they supposed to sleep . Are this was to kill themselves for not sleeping. This is undgon law its available state able to address these cs, this is a complicatedicy question. We believe the eighth amendment analysis focuses on whats so complicated about g someone somewhere, sleep with a blanket in the outside if they have nowhere to sleep. The laws against defecation, against keeping things unsanitary around yourself, those have all been upheld. The only thing this injunction does is say you canno someone from sleeping in a public place without a blanket. W dont you answer and then we wl move on to the next round and you can be thi about answering while we move into a different space of the argument. It is being a bank robber a status . No i would say your question ising would it be permissible to punish being a bank robber i think that would have vague problems. It would be someone who robbed a bank. That does not sound vague. I do not think it is a status in the sense of robinson. Which again i want to just focus on what we think robinands for and its only a Narrow Holding about addiction and ere it was the status of being an addict t any mens rea. A law like that is problematic process problems. Oblems, due the eighth amendthis entire exercise is the only time this court has evaluated the substantive criminal law and it raises these line drawing problems i am not here to defend robinson as matter of first principles. We think it was wrongly decided. We are just saying it is so far removed, our ls e so far removed from what was at issue with robinson it is just not implicated. Ione is homeless for one week andn finds available shelter is that person homeless when he is in the shelter . Under federal law he is actually considered homeless. That shows the fluidity, different ways putting hud regulations to one side can someone who eeping in a shelter be considered homeless . Some would say yes. What would you say . I would say at that point he sheltered and homeless. Let me make it easier, what if he buys a home or finds a home or isiven a home . Is not. Whats at issue in this case. So you think the status of time to another. Change from one i think it is very fluid. Is that consistent with the definition of status and robinson . Robinson treated addiction as disease and as something and many believe addiction is something that someone has with them forever and it is a that is a very different situat if someone h shelter lets say they w offered shelter yesterd they refused it. And then today when someone cos around and tells them they are not permitted to camp are they involuntarily there if they shelter yesterday . T