PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

9th Circuit Continues on its Merry Way

| No Comments


In Jones v. City of Los Angeles, a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2 to 1 last week that the city had gone too far in letting police remove the homeless from its streets.

Six homeless individuals, unable to obtain shelter on the night each was cited or arrested, filed an Eighth Amendment challenge to the enforcement of a City of Los Angeles ordinance that criminalizes sitting, lying, or sleeping on public streets and sidewalks at all times and in all places within Los Angeles's city limits. Appellants sought limited injunctive relief from enforcement of the ordinance during nighttime hours, i.e., between 9:00 p.m. and 6:30 a .m., or at any time against the temporarily infirm or permanently disabled.

The court said the city's policy violates the Constitution's Eighth Amendment, but only if the arrested person is homeless. Unless you find them beds in a shelter, the court said, arresting or removing homeless people from the street is both "cruel and unusual" -- even if they're a threat to public safety. So there is a constitutional right to use the streets as one's home, even if one's presence endangers others.

Just checked my dog-eared copy of the Constitution -- I must have missed the last loose-leaf update. And I'm not alone. Complained Investor's Business Daily (IBD):

"The court's decision has no constitutional basis and undermines cities' ability to deal with a growing problem on their streets. It also suggests that the court -- not voters or their duly elected political representatives -- has the right to decide how the problem should be solved."

The Jones case is just another in a long line of bizarre decisions handed by the out-of-control 9th. Among them:

In 2002, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, the 9th declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it contained the word "God."

In 2003, a three-judge panel temporarily halted California's recall election, in response to a spurious complaint from the ACLU about voting methods and despite having no legal justification or precedent for doing so.

In 2005, in Fields v. Palmdale School District, the court allowed schools to give first, third and fifth graders sexually explicit questionnaires, despite angry objections from parents.

See the IBD editorial, "The New Untouchables," April 18, 2006, here (subscription required):
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060417

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.