It Might Be the Most Important Supreme Court Decision in a Generation. Understanding City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.

There's very little that Republicans and Democrats agree on these days.

But in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, we have a rare case of like minds.

Local and state leaders from across the political spectrum are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them to ban homelessness in their jurisdictions.

Whether seeking solutions to homelessness such as forcing those on the street into affordable transitional housing or just banning rough sleeping in their areas, leaders want the ability to tackle the homeless dilemma, one of the most pressing social and economic problems in modern America.

But in recent years, some appellate courts have decided that people have a right to live on the street - or in their cars or RVs - if they have nowhere else to go. As long as they stay on public property. According to that rationale, bans on homelessness run afoul of the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment."

Wherever this case goes, it has the potential to radically impact urban life in the U.S., with economic and social consequences that could be very far reaching.

I personally am undecided on which way the court should rule.

But here are some things to consider.

Perspective #1: It's Not a Crime to be Poor

In the U.S., we value our freedom and the rights of all people. And that includes all economic levels too.

Homelessness can be due to choices. But it can also be a plight that people fall into because of family problems, unemployment, the high cost of living, and even natural and manmade disasters.

Modern society is not a very forgiving environment. Housing and transportation costs are very high. Many people are just a crisis away from being on the street.

If people have nowhere to go, it isn't humane nor solution-oriented to just make their presence in a community illegal.

And that approach often creates problems for nearby municipalities that must cope with the influx of homeless fleeing restrictive laws, in addition to their own homeless population.

Recognizing the rights of homeless people also has implications in other areas.

It strengthens parental rights and the sanctity of the family, since it would set a precedent that families in hard times can't be penalized for falling into hardships.

And it could usher in an era of better recognizing that we're not all upper middle class or upper class (regardless of what advertisers show us).

Perspective #2: Legalizing Homelessness Could Turn America Into a Third World Society

If the homeless have a right to homelessness, it could undercut efforts at humanitarian relief or helping the less fortunate get back on their feet.

And with inflation and the loss of low-skill jobs, this lack of solution-oriented incentives could prompt the homeless population to explode, with city and state leaders powerless to take any meaningful action.

In the Third World, it's not so much that there aren't wealthy people but that there are many people in abject poverty with few in the middle class. And that dramatic income and quality of life inequality has serious political, social and economic consequences.

Such could be the future of America if homelessness is viewed as a right.

A rise in the number of minors experiencing homelessness - whether accompanied by parents or not - could also be a serious unintended consequence of legalizing homelessness.

Similar conditions in other countries remind us that exploitation and a vicious cycle of abject poverty - as well as a subculture based society - could result.

Perspective #3: It's Important to Define Homelessness

For those of us living in homes and apartments, we find it easy to differentiate between our luxurious state in comparison to the discomfort, danger and squalor of the street.

But the definition of homelessness can be quite a bit more complex.

Most of us would agree that living in a car constitutes homelessness.

But what about RV living?

When I worked an overnight stock job a decade ago, I had a coworker who actually aspired to living in a trailer with her boyfriend whom she planned to marry.

Faced with the high cost of living - especially for someone without much formal education - the idea of at least having a relatively clean and safe RV seemed like an easier and better path to her.

Would someone in that category really be homeless?

In many cities, the answer would be "yes." But compared to the decrepit state of some low income traditional housing, is that really the correct perspective?

And what about substandard housing?

More and more families are turning to accessory dwelling units or tiny homes or even converted garages as places for adult children, couples or the elderly to live in. If these shelters don't have electricity or plumbing, some would define the inhabitants as homeless due to substandard living.

Yet such a definition only exacerbates the problem, since considering simple housing as just a different form of homelessness leads to gentrification and even rampant use of eminent domain to clear out supposed blight. And in many cities, that's partly how we got in to the problem we're in today. There is often no place in modern society for those of lower means. But better to have a simple life than to be completely destitute.

************************************************************************************

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court - and many state and local leaders - aren't adequately addressing the true causes of homelessness. High costs, the breakdown of the family, mental illness and substance abuse, the disappearance of less skilled jobs, the fact that housing being built today is almost always for the upper middle class or above.

These challenges are so vast, there is legitimate question whether they really can be solved by American democracy.

In the meantime, solutions are likely to fall short.

But the Supreme Court will decide whether our society will continue to strive to be a developed economy with a high standard of living - viewing homelessness as a social problem - or whether we will resign ourselves to having a destitute underclass, more akin to conditions in countries caught in the middle income trap, where industrialization has brought a gap between rich and poor, rather than comfortable middle class living.

The ruling will be a landmark one. And one to parse through carefully after the fact to understand the future of American everyday life.

(If you are an economics, social science, political science or urban studies professor or student, this topic might be a good one to research in 2024 and beyond).