Oregon, My Oregon

At Althouse, "The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether an Oregon city can enforce its ban on public camping against homeless people...."

"San Francisco, which spent over $672 million during the last fiscal year to provide shelter and housing to people experiencing homelessness, told the justices in a 'friend of the court' brief that its inability to enforce its own laws 'has made it more difficult to provide services' to those people.... [In a 2018 case, the 9th Circuit] held that punishing homeless people for public camping would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment if they did not have access to shelter elsewhere. The court of appeals reasoned that, just as the city could not punish someone for their status – being homeless – it also could not punish them for conduct 'that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless.'"

Writes Amy Howe, at SCOTUSblog. 

Here's the 9th Circuit opinion: Johnson v. City of Grants Pass.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board quickly responded with "Is There a Constitutional Right to Vagrancy?":

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an appeal challenging a judicial ruling that established a de facto constitutional right to vagrancy. Wouldn't it be rich if conservative Justices rescue progressive cities from themselves?...

Local governments in the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction, including Los Angeles, San Francisco and Phoenix, also urged Justices to hear the case. That includes California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who argued in a friend-of-court brief that "courts are not well-suited to micromanage such nuanced policy issues based on ill-defined rules."
We look forward to Mr. Newsom's constitutional communion with Justice Clarence Thomas.

Here's hoping the Supreme Court overrules the 9th Circus, and denies the vagrants the right to camp wherever and whenever they want.