In a significant and closely watched case, the Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday regarding whether cities in the West should have more power to limit homeless encampments on sidewalks and other public spaces. Justices appeared deeply divided on the issue, with the court's liberals expressing concerns about the potential criminalization of homelessness, while conservatives questioned whether homelessness should be considered a constitutional protected status.

During the proceedings, Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's liberals, highlighted the biological necessity of sleep and cautioned against criminalizing homelessness. On the other hand, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., leading the conservative perspective, pointed out that homelessness could be a temporary status, as individuals may find shelter after a brief period. He expressed skepticism about treating homelessness as a constitutional matter deserving protection.

The justices and attorneys engaged in a lengthy discussion on whether homeless individuals should be shielded from city laws that could punish them due to their lack of housing. Attorney Theane Evangelis, representing the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, argued that the issue of homelessness had been exacerbated by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' rulings, which declared fines or penalties imposed by cities on homeless people sleeping outside as unconstitutional. Faced with no other similar rulings from other appellate courts, Evangelis urged the justices to "end the 9th Circuit's failed experiment."

However, it remained unclear whether a solid majority existed among the justices to overturn the 9th Circuit entirely. Some justices appeared open to a middle-ground approach, which would allow cities to regulate where people can sleep outside, without prohibiting camping or sleeping throughout the city. Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Ed Kneedler supported this nuanced stance, emphasizing that while sleeping outdoors should not be criminalized, there should be "flexibility to enforce" reasonable restrictions on where homeless people can sleep.

The potential swing votes on the matter, Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, expressed reservations about laws that penalize homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors. Both questioned the effectiveness of such laws and the lack of accessible alternatives, particularly in finding available shelter.

The case at hand, Grants Pass vs. Johnson, has implications for the constitutional protections afforded to homeless people who occupy sidewalks or parks. Advocates on both sides accused the opposing party of arguing extreme positions. Attorneys representing the homeless plaintiffs alleged that Grants Pass sought to "banish" poor, homeless individuals from the city by criminalizing aspects of homelessness. City officials, in their defense, claimed that they had been denied the authority to enforce ordinances against camping or sleeping in public areas.

Since 2018, the 9th Circuit's interpretation has considered it cruel and unusual punishment to arrest or fine individuals sleeping in public due to the lack of alternative options. City attorneys argue that these rulings have worsened the growth of homeless encampments in California and the Western region. They hope for a Supreme Court ruling that clarifies the scope of cities' enforcement authority.

Advocates for homeless individuals expressed concerns that a ruling in favor of Grants Pass could criminalize homelessness further, making it a crime for poor people to sleep outside. The justices will convene privately on Thursday to deliberate and vote on the case. A final ruling is expected to be delivered in late June, which will carry significant implications for homeless rights and the authority of cities to regulate public spaces.