Compassion and common sense are put on trial

Local government officials will be watching closely when the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Johnson v. Grants Pass, Ore., a case that could give cities and counties a green light to unceremoniously sweep homeless people off of public property.

In the Oregon case, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a Grants Pass rule forbidding homeless people from using bedding on public property. The policy was an attempt to tiptoe around existing caselaw that limits local governments’ powers to remove homeless encampments. People were free to sleep on the courthouse steps or in city parks if they had nowhere else to go — they just couldn’t have any sleeping bags, blankets or shelter of any sort.

The Supreme Court’s willingness to hear the case is music to the ears of some county and city officials. But it’s worrisome to agencies and advocates who work with people experiencing homelessness.

In recent years, the court has taken a sharp turn to the right politically, and many observers expect the justices to uphold the legality of municipal policies like the one the 9th Circuit just rejected.

But trying to outlaw poverty is a naïve strategy. Bulldozing people off public property only pushes the problem into somebody else’s yard. Then what?

And if the Supreme Court sides with Grants Pass, tougher — and more widespread — rules are sure to follow.

Homelessness is a problem that calls for clear and compassionate reasoning, not over-simplified talking points.

Jailing or fining people who have nothing is a futile pursuit. The answer isn’t punishment, and our court system is already overflowing with much more serious crimes.

The solution takes patience and collaboration, and if local governments are serious about achieving lasting fixes to the problem, they need to focus on supporting existing community safety nets. They need to redouble their efforts to address the root causes of homelessness — the critical lack of affordable housing, inadequate education, income disparity.

No matter how it goes, the Supreme Court’s ruling will tell us a lot about who we are.