Will the Supreme Court block an Oregon law criminalizing homelessness?
Nearly 38 million Americans live in poverty. In some areas and among some populations, entrenched economic inequality is particularly acute. One in four children in New York City lives in poverty. Black Americans are five times as likely as white Americans to reside in high-poverty neighborhoods. These figures are a testament to the pressing need to address economic inequality and the racial wealth disparity in this country. With the gap between the richest and poorest Americans growing, the Supreme Court on Monday hears oral argument in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, in which a host of states and localities will urge the justices to uphold an Oregon city’s ordinances that criminalize homelessness.
Fortunately, there is a tool available in this case—and in the fight against economic inequality generally—that has for far too long been underutilized in the realm of economic justice: the 14thAmendment.
It is well known that the 14thAmendment revolutionized our Constitution, changing a document that sanctioned bondage into one that promised liberation and equal citizenship. But this is only part of the story: The 14thAmendment was also adopted to safeguard the fundamental rights and equality of poor people. Although this aspect of the amendment has deep roots in its text and history, it has never been properly recognized by the courts.
Redressing the horrors and aftermath of slavery required sweeping guarantees to protect the most oppressed Americans—those who had been held in slavery, forced to toil their entire lives without pay, denied ownership of their bodies and brutalized, and left in abject poverty. One of the chief abuses the 14thAmendment sought to end were pernicious vagrancy laws in the post–Civil War Black Codes, which were designed to push Black Americans back into enslavement simply because they were poor. Southern efforts to criminalize Black poverty made a mockery of the freedom promised by abolition.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementRepairing the Constitution required guarantees to protect the poorest and most marginalized Americans from state oppression and neglect. The Framers were adamant that “we shall not peril one single right of the poorest man that treads the soil of this country,” insisting that those on the margins of society were entitled to equal citizenship. Fundamental changes to the Constitution were necessary to entrench in our national charter the principle that “a true republic rests on the absolute equality of rights of the whole people, high and low, rich and poor, white and black.”
One of the 14thAmendment’s most important innovations was to place on states an affirmative constitutional duty to protect the legal rights of the entire populace, rich and poor alike. “American citizenship would be little worth it if it did not carry protection with it,” argued Illinois Sen. Lyman Trumbull. The equal protection clause wrote the right to legal protection, independent of wealth, into the Constitution. Rather than acting to keep the poorest of Americans marginalized, states now had a constitutional obligation to act affirmatively to protect their enjoyment of life, liberty, and property.
AdvertisementThe debates over the 14thAmendment repeatedly affirm economic equality as a fundamental constitutional ideal. Rich and poor alike were entitled to equal citizenship, equal rights, and equal protection. Introducing the 14thAmendment, Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard explained that it “gives to the humblest, the poorest, the most despised of the race the same rights and same protection under the law as it gives to the most powerful, the most wealthy, or the most haughty.” Illinois Rep. Jehu Baker argued that it was a “disgrace to a free country that the poor and the weak members of society should be denied equal justice and equal protection at the hands of the law.”
Advertisement AdvertisementSimilar affirmations of economic equality pervaded speeches urging ratification. On the campaign trail, Ohio Rep. John Bingham described the equal protection guarantee as a “sublime example of a great and powerful people” providing that “the humblest human being anywhere shall have the same protection under the law as the President himself.” It meant that “Lazarus in his rags shall be as sacred before the majesty of American law as the rich man clothed in purple and fine linen.”
AdvertisementThe Reconstruction Framers not only fundamentally altered the Constitution; they also created the nation’s first federal social welfare agency—the Freedmen’s Bureau—to provide access to food, medical care, and education to Black Americans freed from enslavement and refugees whose lives had been uprooted by wartime devastation. Aiming to ensure some measure of economic security and access to education, the legislation recognized the federal government’s constitutional responsibility to make equal citizenship a reality. “The obligation to take care of them,” Trumbull insisted, “is a constitutional obligation imposed on us as a government.”
The Freedmen’s Bureau legislation provides crucial insight into what protection meant to those who wrote the 14thAmendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Freedmen’s Bureau Act “cast the shield of protection over four million American citizens” at a time when white-dominated Southern governments refused to spend a penny on poor Black Americans yearning for meaningful freedom. To redeem the promise of abolition, Congress acted to alleviate poverty, help newly freed individuals become self-supporting citizens, and ensure access to education. Equal protection entailed the provision of basic goods and services to make freedom real.
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementThis aspect of the 14thAmendment’s text and history has never received its due. To the contrary, conservative Supreme Court justices have repeatedly given a crabbed interpretation of the 14thAmendment and read poor Americans out of its universal promises.
AdvertisementIn 1970, in Dandridge v. Williams, the court announced that inequalities in the administration of state-run programs are “not the business of this Court” even when “the most basic needs of impoverished human beings” are at stake. In 1973, in San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, the court sanctioned school financing arrangements that denied equal educational opportunities to children from poorer neighborhoods. In 1980 Harris v. McRaeupheld the exclusion of abortion from Medicaid’s coverage of medically necessary health care and sanctioned the power of the government to harm poor women—disproportionately women of color—simply because of their poverty.
AdvertisementRelated From Slate
Mark Joseph Stern
The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Just Took Direct Aim at Jack Smith’s Trump Indictment. Will They Go Through With It?
Read MorePopular in News & Politics
- The Lawyer Defending Idaho’s Abortion Ban Irritated the One Justice He Needed on His Side
- You Don’t Want to Know How It’s Going Between Trump’s Lawyers and the Judge Presiding Over His Criminal Case
- We’ve Been Entertaining an Illusion About the Supreme Court. It’s Finally Been Shattered.
- Prosecutors Are Finally Revealing Their Strategy Against Trump
This term, with the Grants Passcase, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to take at least a small step in the right direction away from the court’s disappointing legacy—and more recent history—on economic justice issues.
In 2013 the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, adopted a series of ordinances that criminalize sleeping anywhere in public with as little as a blanket. Rather than protect its most marginalized inhabitants, the city sought to use the power of criminal law to banish its homeless residents.
AdvertisementThe case, which asks the court to decide whether the ordinances violate the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, raises the fundamental question of whether homeless persons will be treated as equal citizens entitled to protection or punished as criminals simply because they lack a shelter over their heads. The import of the 14thAmendment’s text and history should be plain: Criminalizing poverty violates the Constitution.
Grants Pass insists that how it treats its poorest residents is purely a question of policy. As a matter of text and history, this is flatly wrong. The 14thAmendment centers the rights of poor people. Recognizing this fundamental truth is long overdue.
Tweet Share Share Comment(责任编辑:产品中心)
-
本报讯2024年秋季学期开学在即,市教育局提前谋划部署,抓细抓实控辍保学、师资优化、校园安全、后勤保障等工作,全力保障开学平稳有序。据悉,为进一步加强适龄人口失学辍学情况动态监测,市教育局建立全市适龄 ...[详细]
-
提速搬迁进度为项目建设打基础。图为成雅快速通道水津关特大桥项目施工现场截至目前,由6号片区承担的新区大道及综合管廊项目80户搬迁任务已完成91.25%;南坝东街棚改109户搬迁任务已完成104户;前进 ...[详细]
-
9月22日,2019第十届环中国国际公路自行车赛在我市名山区圆满收官。凭借超强的爬坡能力和紧密的团队配合,中国恒翔洲际队的云南小将吕先景将黄色领骑衫一穿到底,收获了2019第十届环中国国际公路自行车赛 ...[详细]
-
澹崇墝鐭虫补钀藉瓙闈掑矝甯傚崡 涓栫晫500寮轰紒涓氳揪48瀹禵涓浗灞变笢缃慱闈掑矝
銆€銆€涓浗灞变笢缃戦潚宀涢閬?鏈?1鏃ヨ(璁拌€ 濮滃┓) 7鏈?0鏃ヤ笂鍗堬紝甯傚崡鍖轰汉姘戞斂搴滀笌澹崇墝鍗庡寳鐭虫补闆嗗洟銆侀潚宀涙梾娓搁泦鍥㈠湪鍏ぇ鍏冲棣嗕妇琛屾垬鐣ュ悎浣滅绾︿ ...[详细] -
This photo, carried on Wednesday, shows the North test-firing a 240mm multiple rocket launcher with ...[详细]
-
雅安日报/北纬网讯律师依法会见、依法阅卷、依法参加庭前议……“扫黑除恶”专项斗争启动以来,我市区各级司法行政机关积极引导律师依法开展涉嫌黑恶势力犯罪案件辩护代理,保障犯罪嫌疑人、被告人合法权益,使扫黑 ...[详细]
-
跨越海峡 融聚民族丨精美畲族视频,约你相聚潮州凤凰山_南方+_南方plus(凤凰来仪,跨海相会!海峡两岸民族同胞欢聚凤凰山,时长共4分40秒)潮州凤凰山,千百年来静静地伫立,依着山和水,一代代畲族人在 ...[详细]
-
銆€銆€涓浗灞变笢缃戦潚宀涢閬?鏈?6鏃ヨ 8鏈?3鏃ワ紝闈掑矝鑱旈€欼DC鏂板紑閫氬埌闈掑矝A鑺傜偣鏂瑰悜鐨?00G鍑哄彛鐢佃矾锛岀敱姝ら潚宀涜仈閫欼DC鍑哄彛甯﹀鎬婚噺杈惧埌3400G锛屽 ...[详细]
-
Best smart home deals this week
Our top picks:Best smart speaker dealEcho Dot (5th gen) with a free Sengled Smart Color Bulb$49.99 a ...[详细] -
今年31岁的刘敬是荥经县新添镇庙岗村人,也是县城两家美发中心的老板。2009年4月,在家人的支持下,刘敬成立“爱心义剪队”,用自己的技艺和力量,利用一切闲暇时间为留守儿童、老人义剪。10年时间从未间断 ...[详细]