found on social media? >> check out my youtube channel, brad palombo. guest: you can find me on youtube. con. host: to both of you gentlemen, thanks for the conversation. guest: guest: thank you. thank you. host: that's it for her program today. at the supreme court, case taking a look at homelessness in the united states and how neighborhoods respond to it. it's part of an oral argument provided by the court and we provide them to you. you can always find them on our website at c-span.org those oral arguments are set to start shortly. [speaking another language] [captions copyright national cablsallite corp. 2024] [speaking another language] >> these generally applicable

laws prohibit speciconduct in debt and are essential to public health and safe. the night circuit ties cities hands by constitutional lysing the policy debate over how to address growing encampments. it's holding that the ace amendment barsaws passed for three reasons. rst, the cruel and unusual punishment clause governs which punishments are permitted, not what conduct can be prohibited. second, no precedent supports the ninth circuit's rule. respondents abandon itsnce and they misre robinson to bar any punishment for invry conduct that's linked to a status. robinson held only thats cannot outlaw the status of drug addiction. it made clear they can prohibit conduct like drug use.

this court should notrite robinson six decades later. the ninth circuit's ap has proven unworkable. the eighth amendment does not tell courts who is in via -- involuntary homeless, what shelters adequate what time, place and manner reons are allowed but in 35 cou several courts now deciding everything from the exact size of campsites in san rafael to the adequacy of emptyat specific shelters like the gospel rescue mission. cities are struggling to imply shifting standar the field. this court should revere ssent and the ninth circuit court exnt which has fueled the threat of encampments while g those it purports to protect. i welcome the first question. >> do you consider these criminal penalties? >> they are both, justice

thomas. there is mental trespass d civil. >> is that invin this case? >> yes, there is. >> to what extent? have any of the parties here been subject to criminal trespass? >> >> they have been enjoying. they do here. therefor recidivists attendees. which party has been held accounfor criminal trespass? >> none of the individuals were currently in the case. >> what's involved in this case? >> for logan and johon, the civil penalty. >> is that the anti-camping or what is it? >> yes, it is. >> is that civil or criminal? >> the camping ordinances symbol

-- is civil embers several -- and repeat offenders -- >> we are not talking abo that yet. have we applied the eighth >> not the cruel and unusual? punishment flaws. what will the city do if you don't hear it will have to surrender public spaces. beds are going on use. people are not getting the help they need. the city is under injunction here it's uno rely on these basic ordinances. in the circuitecision, cities like grants pass have no guides about how they can navigate this very challen areas to regulate what the city

can do in public spaces. >> unused beds are less than 100? and there are thousands of home? >> i believe is many 600 and grants pass. >> but there is less than 100 beds. let me stop yoment. you are not asking us to >> think robinson was wrongly decided and should not be extend but we don't think the court needs to overturn that. >> assuming it'ir, it prohibit a dish prohibit prohibits you fm iminalizing homelessness. u n say only homeless people loosely about your will be arrested that's the testimony of your chief of police.

if you read the crime, it's only seven you sitting there sleeping in public on his way to you don't arrest babies who have blanketstheir heads. you don't arrest people who sleeping on the bchs they tend to do i i been there a while. you only arrest people who don't have a second home, is that correct? who don't have a home. >> these laws are generally applicable >> that's what you want to s give me one example because you're police officers couldn't and they explicitly said that if sohas another home, has a

mend it's out there and happens to fall asleep, they won't be arrested. full asleep or som on that. >> joint appendi number 98 is an example of a citation. what we are getting at here is that these laws regulate conduct of everyone. criminalizes homelessness.w that >> that's what you say it if i look at th record, it's a >> the grants pass policy very clearly says that beieless is not a crime. >> i know that's what you say but you are enforcing this only against the homeless. i would suggest you look at one brief and let me see if i can find it. i will find it later and just mention it. is you seem to start by to ask

saying that the eighth amendmt is limited to forms of punishment and to the nature punishment, the proportionality sue. there is also a number of amicus briefs that layout from the magna carta to the founding roh state laws, throu weems watches a which was in 1910, throughrolater in the century that throughout all of that, both the english, american colonies, the discourses have meorm up or endment jurisprudence.eir eighth you are asking us to ignore all of that history. >> no, we are not.

e are saying is this case does not implica proportionality. we are not asking the court to take a position whether it's a proper inquiry under thth amendment. >> i suggest you are because the old because you see the only amendment is former puni.ighth in those cases, and in our history, we have said that certain punishments cannot be >> and the court hass looked at if a particular punt issidered too extreme for categorically terms of the death penalty in some cases, the work looks it whether a lesser punishment would be acceptable. for the inquiey are focusing on punishment, only what the respondents are asking this court to do is extend - >>o you have hotels that are valued at $250,000 in your city? just answer yes or no. >> i don't know.

let's assume because even in new york city which may be the mo expensive city in the nation or close to ire are hotels that are less thanhafor at that price. if a homeless person had that kind of money, don't you think they would stay in a hotel? >> the difficulty here is that this rule that the respondents are ing rests on whether someone's conduct is we are talking about conduct so i want to talk about how this completely distinguishes i -- >> so taking robinson as a atus of homelessness?inalize the >> have a couple of point that. >> it's just a simple question. >> robinson does not address that. i think it's completely diishae. >> could you criminalize the >> i don't think homelessness is a status like drug addiction.

>> homelessness is a status, is >> i disagree hat becausea home. it is so fluid and different, people experiencinelessness might be one day without shelter and the next day with. the federal definition -- >> i the period where you don't have a home in you're homeless, is that a status? can you criminalize that? >> no, it's no >> you could criminalize just >>melessness. >>hat's quite striking that you think you can criminalize just homelessness. >> we are not saying homelessness is a status. eighth amendmentnot focus on this. >> it'really simple question, can you credit a lot --cize homelessness and yo suggesting we could.

>> i'm not saying -- >> could you criminalize it? >> i think theld be due process and vagueness problems. i don't think there's an e amendment problem because that s a limitedision where the holding was solely about a disease of addiction. the court was very clear about distinguishing between addiction and possession. >>ou are right that it's a different statuswas involved inobinn but robinson made clear that there was a category of kids up for status offenses work which were different from conduct offenses. when you started, we are criminalizing ndt. to tell you the truth, this would uestion whe of course we can't criminalize a status b there is conduct here. then i was going to say what is the conduct here? you didn't say that, you said

you could criminale en the status of homelessness. that suggests that you're off on the wrong track and thinking about this i >> i thi the point where we are disagreeing h about whether the eighth amendment is the right framework for this. >> the eighth amendmenwathe framework in robinson. i'm taking robinson as a given where robison said the eighth madman protects you against status based crimes. 't know what the question is. >> i think robin itself and the justice marshall plurality and poured -- and powered the discussion about that. the conduct is establishing a campsite. >> i didn't think that was the conduct. i thought the only conduct here was sleeping outside with a

blanket. >> it is the condu establishing a campsite which incl making a bed with bedding -- >> another gupuggest something different. they suggest a tent and tent camps. your ordinance does not just prib that. yo oinance prohibits the single person who is homeless so it doesn't havenother place to sleep, that's a status. don't list asleep. single version sleeping instead in public with the blanket is what i understand your says -- your statue to do? >>tatute does not say anything about homelessness. it's very important that it applies to everyone. >> i got that but it's a single person with the blanket and you

don't have to have a tent or a camp. >> sleeping inc is a blanket. considered conduct in this corking clark discussed that. >> you could say brehi is conduct, to buto you wouldn't think it's ok to criminalize breathing in public. and for a person who has no place to go, sleeping in plic is like breathing in public. >> even the federal regula prohibit even sleeping. don't require an image or not necessary federal regulations. this is conduct that is understood by jurisdictions onwide and the federal government to be conduct is prohibited this is a superrd

policy problem for all municipalities. >> if you were to come in here and say we need certain protections to keep our streets safe and we cannot have people eeng in any place they want and we can't haveent cities cropping up, that would create. your ordinan ss as to a person and i've sent you think it'generally applicable but we only come up wh isroem for a person who is homeless who has a status of homelessness, o has no other place to sleep. your statue sayshaperson cannot take himself a hself only and c te a blanket and sleepeplace without it being a crime. it just seems like robinson. it seems you are criminalizing a .

>> it is not and we agree this is a very difficult policy question. >> can you answer why it is not? justice kagan is laid out one of theenti robbins was -- which is you are making a distinction between conduct and status. can you explain why thi status? >> that's what was misn robinson and that's what we have here and that's why the law was so unique. itppeared that robinson actually hurt you and i hope she will the following sentenc it seems cru unusual to punish people were asked to bid tish beta human need unlike robinson, you have this is true disease to radio drugs anntial he culpable acts that relate to that, we are talking about sleeping that is universal, that basic

function. what i guess i dont under stand this in this circumstance, why that particular state is being considered conduct theurse of punishment? >> that illustrates the line if you look at biological necessities at a person needs to do, the ninth circuit's decision in this area would allow -- >> can i give you a hypothetical? suppose the relative ordinance prohibiting eating on p property rather than sleeping or camping and the city forery rational reasons determined that whene eat outdoors, he reads problems with tra rodents and the like. it bans eating in public places and it punishes violators. just as here, that seems generally fine because most peave arrived they go to

most people have as something they have to eat in public because they are unannounced and can affo to go to a restaurant. is your argument the same would it just what's happening is you are only punishing certain people who can't do it privately. >> i take for a moment that 're not saying the law draws lines on any sort ofational bases or equal protection? >> when people eat in public, there is trash and roden problems. the city says what we will do is we will say no eating in public. what i'm concerned about from your argis the suggestion, you call conduct what we have

had have operations is that peoplee able to afford doing this thing that's a basic human they are not punished for by people who don't have any other do it in public are the ones who are being targeted by this statute area >> i think the eighth amendment is the wrong o look at it. some might have a due process challenge the law like that there -- >> in my hypothetical, peop going to jail because they are eating in public. wise the eighth amendment not implicated? >> you would have a necessity dense. >> on that point, i think we are toodge the defense.about where whether it's the eighth or 14th ent. do you concede that there were instances in which necessity defense long recognized would

apply eating inublic and sleeping in pur other things like that? i agree but in the case of camping, it recognizes that necessary trend so it was state law. that's why are able to address the needs of whs issue raises. for something under oregon state law, a person could raise that defense under the necessity of incident does not month, the -- think it's done enough already. >> let me ask you about oregon law. once there w threshold concern. i understand oregon has enacted this very issue.eems to address i'm trying to understand why this is the why.

it codifies martin's rulsa something about all regulation of this nature have to objectively reasonable andime -- in time, place and manner with regards to people it's parenting homelessness. it seems like the state is already precluded grants pass so why do we need to weigh in on at? >> it hasn't. both sgree that this has not moved and there is no state law challenging this case t that standard is very different from margins. >> what about avoidance? wouldn't our principle be that don't need to reach the cotionality of this issue if there is another possible way of resolving it because e state has addressed it? >> tte law is very differd we believe our law satisfies. ct that the state's acting here's a good thing. we agree that states should be able to make policy and weigh the need to reverse martin is so

critical because laws like ours really do serve as an essential purpose. they protect the health and safe everyone it's not safe to live in on -- in ennts. we see what's happening. ere are the harms of the mpment themselves on those in them and outside. we know the federal government has ed encampments in the capital in mcpherson so this is an urgent problem. also there are downstream effects of all other things that flow from it. it is very important here to understand that the state laws -- >> is it yourrgument the eighth amendment has nothing to y about how a city response to such problems echo if the city decided it would e homes people, very extreme but it would solve the problems you're talking about. do wee an eighth amendment

issue in that circumstance? >> you look at the punishment. >> that would be both cruel and unusual, wouldn't it? >> yes. >> why not just yes to that. >> let me ask a question about the scope of your nce. this criminalizes sleeping with the blanket at a minimum, right? >> yes. >> after this decision may be after martin before that, there werewestern about whether fires or campfires and tents. can lk about what the scope of that is? does it make it difficult for us to do liuse fires. >> the argumen that it's a biological necessity to sleep outside, the respondents argue a blanket is necessary in oregon and some might argue a tent and

a fire is ary north dakota so the eighth that mama doesn't give us anyrs to it city cannick cannot prohibit. it's really administrative as well as for courts to administer. >> we have nothi to do with that was exempted under the district court's injunction and circurt to not require that. court did not require . we are talking only about sleeping with a blke so let's narrow it to what it is , i agree there might be other cases in the circuit that are notnal. d i don't mean to throw aspersions at those holdings but some of them are not permitting time and restrictions. let's go beyond that, here you

arnotcluded from prohibiting fires you're not precluded from rivetg tense. what is at issue is are you prohibited from having someo wear a blanket. anywhere icity. your intent was to remove as stated by your mayor, the intent t rove every homeless person and give them no public space to sit down with a blanket or lay down with a blanket falsely. >> i would likddress that point. >> why don't you answer the basic question. it's not about fires, it's not out tense, it's about not being a time and place restriction about eliminating choices. spaces on streets and in parks whenedding materials, when huma living in those conditions if we think that's

compassionate. neither is providing them with nothing. we alleviate that situation. >> this is a difficult policy situat >> where do we them iy city, village and town lac compassion. passes a law identical to this? where are they supposed to sleep? are this was to kill themselves for not sleeping. >> this is undgon law it's available state able to address these cs, this is a complicatedicy question. we believe the eighth amendment analysis focuses on -- >> what's so complicated about g someone somewhere, sleep with a blanket in the outside if they have nowhere to sleep. the laws against defecation,

against keeping things unsanitary around yourself, those have all been upheld. the only thing this injunction does is say you canno someone from sleeping in a public place without a blanket. >> w don't you answer and then we wl move on to the next round and you can be thi about answering while we move into a different space of the argument. it is being a bank robber a status? >> no i would say your question ising would it be permissible to punish being a bank robber i think that would have vague problems. >> it would be someone who robbed a bank. that does not sound vague. >> i do not think it is a status in the sense of robinson. which again i want to just focus

on what we think robinands for and it's only a narrow holding about addiction and ere it was the status of being an addict t any mens rea. a law like that is problematic process problems.oblems, due the eighth amendthis entire exercise is the only time this court has evaluated the substantive criminal law and it raises these line drawing problems i am not here to defend robinson as matter of first principles. we think it was wrongly decided. we are just saying it is so far removed, our ls e so far removed from what was at issue with robinson it is just not implicated. >> ione is homeless for one week andn finds available shelter is that person homeless when he is in the shelter? >> under federal law he is

actually considered homeless. that shows the fluidity, different ways -- >> putting hud regulations to one side can someone who eeping in a shelter be considered homeless? >> some would say yes. >> what would you say? >> i would say at that point he sheltered and homeless. >> let me make it easier, what if he buys a home or finds a home or isiven a home? >>is not. >> what's at issue in this case. >> so you think the status of time to another. change from one >> i think it is very fluid. >> is that consistent with the definition of status and robinson? >> robinson treated addiction as disease and as something and many believe addiction is something that someone has with them forever and it is a that is a very different situat if someone h shelter let's say

they w offered shelter yesterd they refused it. and then today when someone cos around and tells them they are not permitted to camp are they involuntarily there if they shelter yesterday? that's the question theith amendment does not answer. what if there is a bed availab in the rescue mission but a their, are rottweilers notave permitted there. that's a difficult question for a person at a different pot -- difficult policy question. >> thank you counselor. >> robinson actually included a crime eit use narcotics or to be addicted to the use of narcotics. and the court was concerne out the status of being addicted to the use. is there a crime here for be homeless? >> know there is not.

>> justice alito. >> robinson presents a very difficult nctual question. do you think that someone who is a drug addict is absoluty incapable, analpeople who are in our drug edits are incapable of refraining from using drugs? >> i think for some that may be true and for some perhaps they can escape but that' question of free will and agency that's of every law and what conduct we choose to regulate. >> then compare that with the rson who absolutely has no place to sleep. in a particular juriicon. does that rs have any alternative other than sleeping outside? >> we would have to ask all the

questions i mentioned earlier over what alternatives. >> they have absolutely none. there is not a single they can sleep. >> if that is true then that may be the case and in that case at least in oregon they would have a defense necessity. >> so the points e connection between drug addiction and drug usage is more tenuous than the connection between absolute homelessness and sleeping outside. >> i think in robinson, the court did draw ine but the two are the same, thataying camping outside, sleeping outside and being homeless are two sides ofame coin. we think that's collapsing the status they claimed he conduct. we think the conduct clear because it applies gen to everyone.

the does not say on its face it's a crime to be homeless. >> justice your. -- sotomayor. >> i want to go back to justice thomas is benning question, as i understood it the ninth circuit never reach the excessive fines question presby this case. >> that is correct. you didn't seek cert on that issue. assuming there is no standing i understand one of the appellees died, the one w camping outside died during dependency ofappeal. there are two other named plaintiffs. i know they have finds on them. i am not sure that either of them has any crimi crimes charged against them. where eshat put this appeal?

wheres that put this case? should they be vacating and remanding? to see if there is a live plaintiff, a named pff who is still suffering injury? >> the sleeping ordinance which is the one miss blake challenged, that is no longer in the case. ain rights-of-way andeping in sidewalks in the city and it was a different law and that'not at issue here. so sleeping is not an issue it's about the campaiinance. and we very much hlive case because we are under the ninth circuit injunction and the named plaintiff. >> given injunction. i guess they are not permitted so it's not the campaign it's the parkinn end. >> we intend to n these laws. we want to be able to rely on

these laws. they are very important. >> both these people sleep in cars, both of them slecars outside of the town so they are not seeking campaign permission. is your city not provide for overnight parking in any location at nxcept in private homes? >> camping and vehicles included the campaign ordinance. >> that's going into a camp. >> 80's a place where someone has -- >> so if there's a line of cars and they can stay overnight? eyant to park in one of those spaces. if they fall asleep in the car they are guilty of violating the campaign laws? >> miss johnson parks her car often times at a frso she is not violating thet those times. parking everywhere is not prohibited in certain areas.

>> is sleeping >> in your car prohibited? >> in a park where you are not allowed to. >> indicated intent sep in a park or have they said they wanted to park somewhere in the city and can they park somewhere >> yes they have said they have the intent to continue thei there for subject to the city's laws. >> you've referred a couple of times to the necessity so could you tell me how that would work? >>er oregon law, if a person says -- it's effectively the lesser of two evils. if they said i had no alternative, no legal alternative ot than what i did hear that brok law, then i had no choice and i ore had to break the law

and it was in some sense involuntary to the term but many have been discussing. so it would be very narrow, it is a narrow defense so in that moment. >> so suppose there is a person whis homeless and there are no shelter beds available and the person has no place to go and the personf urse has to slp and the person, it is cold outside and the person has a blanket. that's thmimum conduct so they sleep outside with a blanket and the police officer comes and -- but the person says i had no place else to go, would thci continue to push for some kind of penalty? >> if a person received a citation. if they did than they would have a defense of necessity. >> asserted as a defense so you

are not willing to say we will tell all of our police officers they should not give a citi in that circumstance. we are going to give a citation and then we will see how the courts deal with it t you are going to tell me. >> officers always have discretion and we know they exercise it. >> an individual officer is in a tough situation, the question is whats e city going to tell individual officers. what is ty going to tell individual officers aboute of the kind that i said? you tell them issue the citation and we will see if the person and we will see what the courtty do aut it or are yogog to say there are somthgs that just ought not to be the subject ofil or criminal infractions. >> the city and its policy, joint appendix page 158 for

example talks about what officers are supposed to do. they're supposed put people in touch with services first cont they are -- there is available help for them. these are absolutely a tool for getting people the services they need. >> you are not giving me a real answer to the question of is the city telling officers that they should give citations in that circumstance? >> no. again it is a matter -- is there anything you can point -- there'noing you can point to if the city says we ve necessity defense. what we are teinofficers to do is to act consistently with that den so that if it is truly aatter that is needed of you are sleeping on the street alone with a blanket, the officer should not cite the person. >> there's nothing that shows officers werto about a necessity defense and what it would or would not accomplish.

that we individualized question after the fact if someone received a citation and if they thought that was not enough the proper fram would be the court framework where they would at the serted defense there in some form and here it would be necessd we would a whether it was so deeply rooted in ourtory and something that has to be imposed in this way on the state. >> thank you. >> justice gorsuch. >> i suppose some could also initia alass action of the sort that happened here if you are not allowing the necessity defee operate. and seek to have it force couldn't they? >> justice kavanaugh? >> you said several times it's a difficult policy question and a complitepolicy question. es this law help deal with

the complicated policy issues. >> one of the most difficult challenges is getting them the help they need and laws like this allow the police to intervene and th an important tool in helping incentivize people to accept shelter. said in her deposition in theas joint appendix she does not wish to day at the gospel rescue mission one of thons is because of her dog. sheo does not like being around people and so forth. people have all sorts of circumstances, it is very complex. >> how does it help the rule here, the law here. how does it help if there are not enough beds. or after the number of almost in the jurisdiction. >>iss johnson she sometimes stays with a friend. >> more generally though i guess if there's a mismatch between the number of beds available in

shelters even including gospel rescue and the number of homeless pplthat are going to be a certain number of people who there's e to go. >> that is a difficult policy question. >> how does this law deal with that policy? >> it encourages people accept alternatives so that fewer people with cam there is harm in simply camping. whataterials people are using when they are living in public spaces without plumbing and infrastructure there's to all city andommunity as well as to them. we know encampments in these conditions also breeze crime and very dangerous conditions. the city has an test in protecting. >> you think the constitutional should be different when the number bs available in the jurisdiction eee the number of homeless people versus the number of homeless people available in shelters.beds

>> that's what wve seen in the ninth circuit. that is unworkable. there is no way to count what beds are available and who is perhaps willing to take one and who would conadequate. the question becomes are those adequate so gospel rescue. >> that's a separate iss i agree and it can be a challengsue i suppose. i know. as well. let me ask one last question which is how does the necessity defense differ from the nstitutional role. you touched on this. i want to get a distinct answer on this. >> you would weigh the from the individual conduct in violating the law so if som were camping near a schoo or doing something oging in some behaviors te particularly harmfulhey had another place where they could camphat would be may be

a factorouould raise in a necessity situation. in the case of the oregon cases including people who are growing marijuanmedical reasons but without a license so the necessity defense was not pted in thatbecause they could've obtained a lice so if a person had a friend to goo, had a bed available at the rescue mission they would be expected to take it under the necessity defense. i think that'how it would play out. >> when yoout of jail if you end up, what's can happen then? you still do not have a bed available? how does this help? >> i do want to make a point about the criminal aspect, of the trespass law here is only triggered after several civil citations. >>ouun through that cycle and end up in jailor 30 days, then you get out, you are knocking to be any better off

than you were before in finding a bed. going to the early question unless you remove from the jurisdiction or you decide to leave somehow. >> there are services available in theurdiction put you in touch with services and programs toyou in those circumstances. for many people th a point where they're able to get into treatment. so that intervention actually saves lives. >> thank you. >> let me follow up on that so you are saying theirces available and treatment available so people would timately move off the street? is that what you are saying. part of the premise that there's not enough beds for homeless people to occupy and so there will be atch and some people who cannot be cared for. are you saying if you're laws enforced there is a way for everyone tared for? >'m saying the policy question is quite diffic but these are an important part of the puzzle. they are not the only solution

we do not believe they are but think they are an important tool and without them we've seen what's happened on oeets. we've seen people are dying in encampments. that cities are being for cede all of their public space. uestion is for the legislature and policymakers to figure out we right mix of policies is but the wrong ansr is to do with the ninth circuit did. >> it is very difficult policy question anded you before about whether this wat blankets or it went into having fires or urinating and defe os and this was injunction to carveout thoseular things. other cases have been litigated in the ninth circut have gone beyond that and because the line is things that are involuntary that are human need it can extend its difficult to draw the line. whatever we decide about this

case it is about the line so can you desc some of thengs that are difficult to figure out about the line. there is sleeping, sleeping with blanket, what else? >> public urination an devitt -- defecatioh is a serious problem, those are parts of biological necessity, court of sacramento address that in the ninth circuit opinion bated whether its rule would h those things. y rule we are wondering abou or debating whether it would go that far i think that is a s it is not a workable ru real.lippery slope here is very if not just for camping and conduct that might be biological necess wher things would be allo e things are human needs vive forxample potentia come into focus under the ninth circuit's rule but also in other some could say my drug use possession is of the other side of the coin because i am an addict.

or because a perso who violates other laws cou i had a compulsion to do those things that i could notontrol and the plurality opinion in powell address that very thing and why it's so important to draw the line there. when conduct is involved in one support gets into deciding which input may be excuder the eighth amendment is so far afield of what the eighth amendment was ever understood to address? >> you've argued robinson was wrong and we don't need to overrule it and i i don't think we should overrule robins kind of reg this sta -- characterizing this an other than the drug addiction. so what if the lawit is unlawful and punishable by 30 daysn prison to have the status of homelessness, just go with me. assume the law defin homelessness as a status.

would robinson say that that law is unconstitutional under the eighth amendment? would you concede that? >> you are saying that is a status. >> i it looks a lot like robinson under that hypothetical but of course we disagree. >> but you are accepting the robinson draws a distinction between status and conduct and you are just fighting about the definition of a status. it draws the line where there was no a radius. i do not defend the line under eighth amendment because i don't think the court, i know the court did not rely on eighth amendment principles. >> the hypothetical ha actress radius either. the status of homelessness it could be 4:00 in the afternoon and the person is standing outside, do yee if the law prohibited that under robinson weather was right or

wrong that und robinson that eighth amendment.ion of the >> i think a better framework is due process. >> i understand. but under robinson do you agree that would be wrong? >> yes. >> ok, thank you. >> justice jackson. >> to -- picking up where justice barrett left off you say e ordinance here pertains to condd nottus and i was just trying to figure that out. i am not so sure for this reason. because all humans enga the act in question, sleeping, yet the statute operates or the ordinance operates to penalize only certain individuals, those who have nohoice but to do that act in public, so it appears i think not to be the act that the state city finds criminally culpable, it is

instead the act as engaged in by certain people, people who ot affordousing and have nowhere else to go. why is that the wrong way to think about it and if that is the right way, why isn't that a status crime in the way robinso contemplates? >> we can look at the law and have conductnts or conduct is establishing a campsite and that is something a person who has a home. >> you to find away the basic actus reus, it is sleeping outside to the extent you put outside in it but that'the problem i'm talking about. the actus reus is the slee that's notminally culpable kind of activity. distinguish it from robinson and make it worse for you in a way because in robinson at least if disease and the quewashad a where they engaging and

otherwise criminally culpable conduct buying and selling drugs, taking drugs. we look at that kind of category here, the actus reus is sleeping. human, univers, e city adds ok but y't sleep outside. and i guess what i'm trying that only happens with respectat to a certain category of people who have no other place to go, y isn't that really just punishing the status of being someone who does not have a >> it't apply only to thosee, respondents are trying to exempt category of ople. so what you look at there is the conduct of campaign under federal law and in this cou decision in clark it was understood that conduct. if you were fou in a place, if you enter with permission but

th remain there without permission. >> but it's not because presumably you have other places to go so let me just ask you this other question. what is your understandi because i thought it was premised on the circumstance in to go and they needed toleepse and they needed to be there but you seem to suggest necessity is not baked in to what martin was doing. >> martin speaterms of how it was involuntarily homeless and that raises the policy questi >> we've been ding. inarily homeless means the person has nowhere else to sleep. >> that is the necessiense is available and what spondents are asking to do is to constitutionalize that very defense under the eighth amendment. asd earlier it could be the argument could be made. it would be a high bar butt is the sort of argument we would

expect one to make under a due process decision. >> thank you counsel. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. in robinson the court held the government could not criminalize status respondent as coed here today that the city can criminalize the our narrow submission in this case is government cannot circumvent principle of robinson by making it unlawful for a person to reside in the jurisdiction if has that status. that's what the ordinances here do. a supply to someone who has nowhere else to sleep which is the ordinances are thection.

equivalent of making a crime to be homeless whe ving in grants pass. although we think t nth circuit was right to recognize e re ple of robinson as implitein this ce, the court was wrong to award broad injunctive relief in the circumstances that matter in which it did. robinson principle requires the individual determination and the ninth circuit's failure to require such determinaon and its issuance of much broader injunctive relief has led to the problems at issue that the petitioner and dutch had raised. not the core principle of robinson. and therefore we urge tht to adhere to the core principle of robinson, but to emp that cities have flexibility t implement these and in particular te, place and manner restrictions on where someone can sleep are entirely

valid if they are reasonable and indeed the state law justice jackson refe to establhe a state policy for time, matter and place restrictions are the way to go if they are reasonable. i welcome the courts que. argument if robinson involved someone being arrested for using drugs, bn the court said you were in effect arresting him for etatus of a drug user. because he had no choice because he is an addict. >> our position is not tha conduct as of robinson, the drug addict cant stop from using drugs, that's question of personal culpability on the basis. >> what's the difference betw that and camping out?

what you'reayg here seems as though there is no other choice so you have to cam there or you're really arresting this peor the status of homelessness. >> but not because of an involuntary compulsion. i think as justice alito pointed out the nexus here is closer then in the addiction situation becausslping outside is esntially the mirror image of the other side of the coin or the definition of the status of homelessness. i agree the distinction between status and conduct is a slippery one and they are often closely related. and in rn though the court said you cannot make the status ofeing a drug addict a crime but you can criminalize the conduct even if it is involuntary and compulsive. how -- powell reaffirmed that line very strongly at least the

plurality opinion dateansaid we are knocking to go further. i wonder whether the government is asking us to take that step but powelloueled ainst by saying that it is status, effectelstatus. you use the wo aective or essentially or tantamount to. those kinds of words. and so i want to get your respo that concern. >>e e not asking the court toake the step which had to do with personal responsibility that the sort of issues that re involved. >> then i guess i just want to circle back to a justice thomas was getting out which is surely the goveme wants to continue eorce the drug laws and all kinds of other laws that people could make an argument that i had involuntary need to do a necessity defense too. all of those laws?to wipe out

>> what is different here is the conduct that was suggested in powell would'veeen based on the person's own separate antisocial condu. >> some people will be forced to drink in public. that's the very point. >> but the point here is the government that is prohibiting the alternative, inot the individual's inability to control his own conduct. because of otr circumstances, thla of mone lack of a friend to stayh, a lack of shoulder space there is no other acfor the person to sleep. >> they still make the exact same argument, i had no other choice. >> the other choice would be a matter of personal culpability. >> the record says there is no

other choice, i had to do it. >> i do think engaging in me take that back.related -- let the sleeping outside when you have no other place to go is the definition of homelessness. >> isn't it alsohat those two things are different. you're saying it's about individual culpability but it's in drug use.h everyone engages certaile do and maybe they have addiction abe you the addiction but can stillof punish them as criminally culpable for engaging in the act. it seems to me we are in a totally different category when you're talking about acts that everybody partis in. that no one tin and of themselves are clly le and yet somehow this statute ising out to

punish certain peoplengage in that universal human basic need. that seems to be the distinction. >> that is a critical distinction and not only something that everyoneages in but something everybody h to engage in toe alive. so if you cannot sleep you cannot live and therefore by prohibiting sleeping the city is saying you can live in grants pass. it's the equivalent of a banishment which is something that is unknown. >'t grants pass's first attempt policy choice to put people, homeless people on buses so they would leave the city. i understo that to be the history of grants policeffers would buy them a bus tick and send them out of the cy that did not work because people came back because it had been their home. >> they came back. >> so when they passe law didn't the city council

president say our inteniso make it so uncomfortable here that the move down the road out >> that signal was made at a public meeting of the city council. >> so let's assume what you are happen to know or maybe i hope one of you knows how many beds are in grants >> i believe the only shelter beds at least of the time the record of this cs compiled was of the gospel mission. -- at the gospel mission. there has bwarming center that's been maintained but terms of shelter beds. >> we are talking a portionate. >> proximally 100. so we go back to you want the district court m individualized findings.

you've as to vacate and remand. i quite d't understand in your brief because i thought individual findings had to do the class action. but that question has not been certified. >> our basic point is a person does not have an eighth amendment defense or claim unless they truly do not have some other place to reside. bypeaking to individualized. it depends on whether that person has a relative or some other place. >> i guess what i ing you understand, are you saying that there cannot be a class certification of homeless people ever? that you have to have individuals, or are you saying the injunction is too broad if it does not provide for remedie

somehow that person has to prove a certain number of things. before they are entitled to the injunction. >> the eighth amendment claim the context depends on whether the person hther place to sleep. the peonannot benefit from the eighth amendment claim withoutn -- without that person showing if it comes up in an informative injunction -- injunctive action. showing they have no other place stay. >> thankouounsel. here is theown next to grants pass, 10 minutes awa just completed building a less shelter that has many vacant does that change the analysis here? we talked about the town wanting to ship people out, would there

still be a right to sleep contrary to the ordi in grants pass because you don't want to be taken 10 minutes away where there is a homeless shelter? >> that goes to the question under the analysis the beds are avaibland i thiht across the townline it would be appropriateo take into account there is a homeless shelte there even though it's not one in t city of grants pass, but often in the situation the two towns might cooperate to have one. >> but often towns don't often cooperate so what if it'miles away. is the shelter available for yo purposes or will you tell me it just depends on the circumstances? so mean valleys won't have -- >> one of thamental points here. >> the excess abilities when r comes up in grants and height -- finds a homeless ordinance but i will give you a ride down the road 30 miles

whatever it is because there is a new homeless shelter there and the person says i do not want to do that. can that person be given a citation? >> i tnkrobably not but if i could explain why. obouy there are questions at the margin hereut one of the principal features here should not be overlooked is the city is seeking to banish or expel its n residence, its own citizens. people whose chican go to school in that location who may pay tad that location. if the 30 mile away shelter requires a person to leave this counity and live in another place -- >> let's say there are five ciesll around grants pass shelters and yet the person wants to stay. residence for a long time i don't want to go, can person be given a citation? >> i think because of the

concern i mentioned that would be a sio problem. >> it would be a problem to give them a citation. >> yes. i think so because you would be requiring come of the city's ordinance requires them to leave the city of grants p if the homeless shelter is right over the line they cantill be part of the community. >> and that's why think it's different. i'm not prepared to say absolutely not but i do think it's different because the city is implementing licy of banishing p its own residence. >'s a strange word when you'alking about something 10 minutes away. >> again the question is whether you could realisticay part of the community where you grow up, figures show that most of the homeless people in grants pass are from grants pass. >> many people have mentioned

this is a serious policy problem. it's a policy problem because the so is to provide shfor those who are otherwise harmless. municipalities have competing ties. what if their lead pipes in waterbury do you build a homeless sher take care of the lead pipes. atf there's not enough f protection? why would you think that these are the best people to judge away and those policy judgnt >> we are not suggesting that the only solution especia the current circumstances the lyolution would be to build homeless shelters. as i mentioned, time place and manner restrictions are very sensible way to go. i mentioned oregon state law a city adopta provision you can sleep on the sidewalks an because that obstructs

peoplesicket to move. you can camp near a school, you can camp downtown, you might be able to sleep in the park and so th cld be patrolled for drug use and whatnot. none of these helaws are inapplicable if there's a tim place and manner restriction. >> eating is a basic human function as well tple have to do just like sleeping so someone is hungry and no one is giving them food can you prosecute them if he breaks into a store to get something to eat. >> absolutely, breaking io a store is a common crime not yone engages in. unlike sleeping which is what we have here. >> it's a necessity for the person who needs food. >> it is not a necessity to break into a store and with respect. >> i'm saying this person needs food. >> the eighth amendment does not

require that that food -- person be excused from doing it. there's a certain am of common sense and practicality to this and i think it's we understood just like drug use is nosothing the eighth amendment excuses you from neither is eating, of the problem with eating is addressed at the local level as history has shown its of the community takes care of its own residence and its coon analysis of the founding for churches and individuals and whatnot to offer eir help, to charity and community. that's what happens in grants pass, various organizations feed the homeless people and there are social services to he t homeless people. so this is consistent except the absolute ban of sleeping in the city, otherwise the community's response is what has been done down through history.

the absolute ban that interrupts that continuity. >> could youlainow your rule would be carried out by police officers on a day-to-day basis. let's say there are 500 beds in a particular town an's say it's 3:00 in the afternoon, 4:00 in the afternoon on a winter's da, what is an individual police officers supposed t do, the didual police officer would go around a cnt the number of people who are getti ready to sleep outside? let's s a6:00. count the number of people who are gettg ady to sleep outside for the night and then ask each one of them whether you tried to find a bed at a shelter , whether tt rson would be

willing to go to a shelter if a bed is available. without any conditions or whether e bed would haveo be available on the conditions the individual wants like i won't go to a shelter where they n't take my dog or something like that. explain how that would work on a daily basis. >> with respect to the individual encounter, the way ould work in the real d and i think it's important to understand what happens on e ground in these situations. in the circumstance're talking about i think what would happen is the person encountering the homels person would know whether there is a spot available. i don't think aomess person would be required to check each day with each shelter if there are multiple shelters. and in larger citieshe initial encounters are not handled by law enforcement they are typically handled by social services agencies who are in contact with people can and know

what the circumstances are in they are able to say we know at such and such shelter there are beds available. >> what if there is a question about whether there are indeed enough shelter beds available. your rule would not apply if there werengh beds available. if there are 500 sheltereds and there are only 200 people trng to sleep outside then your rule would not apply? so you have to have a comparison of the number of beds available with a number of people who want to sleep outside. so that would be the threshold question. >> i want to clarify one point that. it's not simply a measure of th number of bed against the numberomess people such that ifre is a deficit the city can enforce the law at all. you have individualize questioning and you know there are vacancies available even if it's not for everybody but there is a vacancy for the person being interviewed then yes that

person, if theyreffered and refuses that person could be prosecuted. or cited. >> what if the person says i know there's a bed available at the gospel rescue mission but they won't take my dog. >> the inability to take your dog to aheer i don't think is a sufficient reason. there are shelters and some larger cities that may take. >> i know i could sleep in the home of a family member, but they really hate me and they are really nasty to me. i'm just wondering how this is daily basis.administered on a >> with all respect i think that example if the family is going to acct em. there is a place to sleep.r 't know it would very often

come down to tt. on the other hand if it's a you she couldn't be expected to go back to her home or maybe her relatives home or his relat home. there's a t common sense. again e w enforcement the first encounter with a police ofor someone else has with a homeless person is very unlikely to be a situation in which the person would be issued a citation. >> you mentioned a couple of things i wan follow up on. does it matter whether the person grew up in the town or t. that's irrelevant? th go up to some police officer or social services in san diego, goes up to someone and says where you from. i'm from fargo but if i have to sleep outside i sure would rather do it here. that doesn't matter? not because of any eighth amend ruleut on this court's

decision in edwards, the privileges and immunities clause or the various right to travel provisions. would prohibit attaching that rt o limitation to a newcomer but as i mentioned. >> i used to live in new jersey meanness of polities, over 500 in theta. i could go for a 20 minute walk in theveng and be in three or four diffen municipalities so to get back to the chief justice'suestion if there ar't enough beds available in st caldwell, west caldwell is out of ckven though there are a lot of beds available in caldwell which is less than a mile away. >> i think the way you are describing it it might be fair to say that set of communities

would be one communi a the person would be banished from they lived or grew up by saying if there is a shelter in this other location then you could bexpected to go there. >> there are some tiny municipalities. what if it does not have a park so somebody will sleep outside the only person where they can sleep is on the street. does a time, place or manner restrictiowo there? >> certainly not on the st because of the safety traffic, et. this common sense accommodation even smaller towns there's probably locations whe a person could s >> thank you. >> i don't want to be

repetitive, what are we vacating and remanding? you individualized finding of what? >> the way the class was din simply on the basis of the aggregateumbers without indiduized determination as to whether frankly and argued not a sufficientndidualized determination as to the two named plaintiffs. they both sleptn eir cars and both of th chose sometimes the meay parking lot. e other slept out of town. it's not clear theiramto the park. the dissentel questioned s that even respect to the named

iffs. the examination of the individual circumstance. >> standing yes and there could be commonality problems if the two named plaintiffs slept in vehicles which may prevent -- >> sleeping in campaign is out of the case. >> sleeping in a vehicle counts. it's not the campaign we been talking about. sleeping on the ground with a blor tent or something like that in the question of tense >> are not in the case. even if the city wants to allow them i suppose it could require they be taken down and put back up, there's a lot of flexibility thcity could have. >> i did wt to ask you about that. let sam with you on the fact you

cannot prohibit being homeless and because you cannot prohibit being homels u cannot prohibit sleeping outside if you are a genuinely homeless person. let sam with you the fact this ordinance says we are prohibiting using a blanket, that can't be rig, you just get hypothmion theroem -- the constitutional probm will go away. but it does seem as though there are line drawing issues as you go up. it's a very close night and someone wants to make a fire. it's rainand someone wants to put up a tarp. the cityas said you can sleep particular areas but it turns out those areas have a ton of crime. you could go on d . i am not -- how do you deal with questions kehat?

thesarnot gotcha questions. howo you deal with questions like that. where is the line where the city casaour legitimate municipal interests can come in and say as to that you cannot do that. you have tre with respect tos tents and parks, i think there's a difference between what you might need to realistically sleep outside 's raining, snowing andhayou might prefer to have is a structure for long-term campaign. as i mentioned, the city might sayou can put up a tent if it is very cold but you have to take ido in the morning. being in some shelte say you can stay here overnight but you have to leave during the day and you n me back. it might be gratuitous of the city to do it and they might not want to do it.

we are not saying the eighth amendment would prevent it and especially as you say there are alternatives or 20 degrees so with respect to fires is a really important issue on the side of that question. and uan areas if you're creating fires or may be hazard in a park there might be -- >> how does the court make thes judgments? usually the're the kind of judgment that we think of as municipal officialma them. yoarsaying there's a certain level wre it's out of their hands and i guess i want to know what the principle is where those questions go to the court and why that principle is the right principle. >> one is it'e municipalities determination ainly in the first instance with a great deal of flexili

how to address the question of holeness in a time, place and manner andhe minas a polity should be able to choose the place, to choose the attributes of that place, to be able to say we are not going to allow or than 20 people to think the principal, of theand i eighth amendment principal would beheer the city has effectively prevented sleeping tside because the protections needed from the elements are not available, certainly in grants pass a blaet would not be but i think that'the touchstone. doboil down to the core principle of robinson that you cannot criminali helessness which includes not being able to criminalize sleeping outside. if you cannot sleep outside because of lack of protection fr the ements, the principle

would apply. the ninth circuit in a number of cases has gone beyond that and we think that's the source of the problems that have been identified in the briefs and not the core principle of robinson. >> >> it does seem toe the status coof the distinction is very tricky. and i had thought that robinson after paul george was just limited to status and now you're saying well there's some ndt that's effectively equated to status. but you're sayg voluntary drug use, you can rulate that conduct that doesn't qualify status. public drunkeness, even if it's involuntary, that doesn't qualify status, right >> right. >> youying you can regula sebody who is hungry and has no othe choice but to

steal. you can regulate atonduct even though it's a basic human cessity and that doesn't come on under the status sidef the line, right? >> yeah. >> ok. buwhen it comes to homelessness which is a terrible fficult problem, you're saying that's different because there are no beds available for them to go to in grants pass. what about seo when has a mental health problem? that prohibits them tt. cannot sleep on a shelter. are they allowed to sleep outside or not? is that status or conduct that's regulatable? >> the qstn would be whether that shelter is available. >> it's available. >> well, no, available to the individual. >> it's available tth individual. it's just because of their mental health problem they cannot do it. >> the mental health situation itself is a status. i know that. is that a further knock on

conduct? >> alcohol drug use, they have problems, too but you're saying that conduct is rulatable. how about with res tos pervasive problem of persons th mental health problems? >> i think in particular ation, if the person would engage in violent conduct -- hypothetical, counsel. my a hard one.ypothetical and it's i'm just trying to understand the limits of y line. >> it depends on the seriousnes >> it is very serious but there are beds available. >> is that place realistically

available to that person? >> it is but n because of their circumstances. >> and that's my point. it's ava and it may be availabl to somebody et requiring an individualized determination might include whether that person could cope hat setting. >> so that might be an eight amendment violation. >> yeah. >> it's an eight amendme assess available beds in theto jurisdictions in which they live because of their mental health problems. >> if going there would. >> howbout if they had a

substance abuse problem and they can't use those substances in the shelter? they can't use them the shelters that's one of the rules. >> if it's the s's rule, then they can't go tf they're addicted. >> that's an eight amendment violation. >> no. the eight amendment violation is prohibiting ng outside because the only shelter that is available -- >> it really available. >> yes. and that's an individualized determination. >> same thing with alcoholic. >> yes. >> so the alcoholic h an eight amendment to sleep outside even though there's a bed available. >> if the only shelter in town won't take him, then i think 's in exactly -- he's in the same condition. d there can be all sorts of reasons -- >> and judgeacss the country are going to super intend ts

under the eight ent. >> i don't think we should let the ninth circuit decisions. >> well, you don't like the class certification but that question's not before us, counsel. >> no. but all we're talking about is the core principle of robinson h you cannot punish someone for status. >> how about if there are no public bathroom facilities? do people have an eight amendment to defecate? is that conduct or is that status? >> it's obviously conduct there and we a not suggesting that citiesan't enforce -- >> why n? if there are no public facilitiilable to homeless persons? >> that situation, you know, has ner arisen.

no one is ting we're not suggestingpublic urination and defecation lnnot be enforced because they're a very substantial puealth reasons forhat. >> there are substantial publi health reasons with drug use, alcohol and all these other things, too. if the eight amendment overrides those, why not in this circumstance? >> i'm not saying the eight amendment erdes the laws against drug use. >> i know that. i kno. that one the government wants to keep. i got that. >> no, i misunderstood your question,orry. >> last one. how about re outdoors? i know you say time, place and manner. but is there an eight amendment right to cook outdoors? >> no. >> that's an incident -- a ma necessity. >> but this is one of th things that, you know, is taken care of ground as a practical matter there.

are restaurants where someone can go. >> no, we're talking about homeless people. they're nog to go spend money at restaurants. >> some people get -- >> let's say there isn't, ok? let's say that there is no reasonable -- and the local community -- >> do they have a right to cook? they have a rit eat, don't they? >> they have a right to eat, right to cook. it's it entails having a fir i think it probably would buts i said, the heating, the feeding is taken care of in most churches stepping forward asd they have for 200 years. >> if there isn't, there's an eight amendment right to have a fire? >> no. >> i thought you just said there was. >> there's food that yld eat without cooking it and they could handout from an individu that, you know, people can beg for money. mean, there are ways that this works out in practe. >> last question. totally sympathetic to the

idea that there might be a necessity defense in these cases. and there's aootnote in your brief that indicates th in a lot of cases, you could maybe ing advanced preliminary injuncvection, at least as individuals. and i don't even know see why u uldn't do it on a class -- >> we haven't ruled out class yet. >> i thoughtou did in that footnote. >> without sufficient inquinney into the individual circumstances is what paarly with the two class representatives here. >> thank you. matter.t of this is a practical but who takes care of on the grounds? is it going toderal judges or the local jurisdictions with working with the nonprofits and religious organizations? so i guess following up on the necessity question, given the line drawing problems thve been going through, if a state has traditional necessity

de won't that take care of most of the cces if not all, and therefore, avoid the nee for having the constitutionalize ar and have a judge rather than local community which yove said manyimes working with the nonprofits and charitable and religious organizations which is how it works in most places? >> well i think that the necessity defense at least tradity has required a much stronger sense of urgency and imminence than this if states had a necesty defense and we knew that it was availae and all of these places but even in oregon, i think there's a case called barrett, that the court says it's theoretically possible but issues.as a reman for factual so we don't know at this point in time whether there is suca defense and that's not in the case here. this comes up on an eight

amendmenthallenge without reference to the necessity defense and tryintoigure out the statue which is highly instructive that jurisdictions grants pass should examine. but i don't think wcan -- i don't think the court should put this core point about robinson to one side because in the possibility that in oregon and maybe in other places i don't know about, califoiaaws, necessity, maybe it would be taken care of. at this point in time, that is to -- >> well usually, w think about befo constitutionalizing an area extending a constitutional presence, you disagree with that aracterization but before doing that we usually think about whether state law, local law already chiefs those courts are not micromanaging

policies. it's a dly issue how many people are going to show up that day at the shelter, at the food bank. so this is not like a once year thing. >> for the people actually dealg th it day-to-day, that is true the city the la enforcement, the city liaison, the nonprofits but it's not true for the f court. it's being disregarded by not -- by criminalizing somebody for sleeping outside when th had no place tsleep inside. that's the core prin that's the only thing crt should be enforcing,othether people show up. the necessity defense. it may be that if the court an inappropriate adjunction to the corprciple

of robinson, but it develops or thstate law develops that there is a necessiense, then that should be taken into t. the state law comes along and tablishes a realistic defense or a realistic approach to people can remain in the community, then the courts obviously should defer to that. but we don't have th established state law at this time and ion think the court should decline to addresshi question which is important i the ninth circuit. >>n e food hype calls -- potheticals about stealing to feed yourself, you waved all those away by tt'all taken care of nonprofits, religious

ornizations and by and, heroic efforts each day make sure tt happens but it doesn't always happen. -- by an stretch. n but homeless people are resourceful. d e towns are coping in the same way franklyha the individual homeless pele do. they do the best tn under circumstances fail and theose nonprofits, etc. can't -- the truck doesn't show up one night, that doesn't become an eight amendment problem. the cities and the nonprofits should be left onto do the work that they're doing unls the core principle of robinson is not respected. >> thank you. >> justice bar >> the one odd thing about the posture ofcase putting aside the class part is

preenforcement nature. the punishment and the adjudication of guilt and it was time for the punisto be imposed and then the eight amendment challenge was raised. and justice alito was asking about the o ground factual determination that law enfot would need to make before decidingther someone be given a citation before camping outdoors. why would it make more sense that robinson could contr here? why wouldn't it make more sense for the eight amendment to be raised much lik the necessity defece the court us isition unlike the law enforcement officerust trying to gather information on the ground to determine whether there were available beds, whete person had a place to go? why is the preenforcement challenge the right way to think ou this?

>> for this ptilar eight amendment claim, the claim is thatheight amendment prohibits criminalizing the act to begin with. so it's not just the punishment that would be -- nderstand that. that requires adjudication to make sure someone is protected or unprotected. if i go and sn an encampment, i coul be cited. it's different. last factual determination the grown and robinson was a came up in the context of the individualized criminal oceedings. so why is the preenforcement

challenge, why does it make sense given the very fact intensive nure? >> imagine in a situation where someone who had no other ac to live and it's the third citation, the fourth citation. andff pattern where the city is consisttl notespecting the robinson principle? here, the question is whether the city can criminalize that conduct at all. if ye a city of citation that don't rise to probable

cause that would be neces for the issuance of aye accusation where the law enent officerren the ground is notespecting the robinson principle, then you mive an injunctive act. but i suppose in robinson itself, if the person had been arrested once, been arrested a second time, and then he's arrested a third time,ld think he could bring a supreme challenge because the way the police were interacting with him was not respecting the to robinson himself.ith respect >> hs the federal government do this? in the brief, you talked about clearing mcpherson square. n you just describe -- i mean, briefly, if y can, do police

then make individualized inquiries? >> what hped there was i think old standard of the way this should be done and in larger chave this ability that park service coopered very closely with the district government. they don't have the municipality have in d. ese are special naon parkperties. but the national park service as the federal government does the federal protective servr buildings elsewhere cooper with the local government. and the local government socia service people or the nonprofits went out and intervi everybody who was in the -- who was in the encampment in mcpherson square and td em about what services are available. there advanced notice given athe encampment is going to

be cleared wi think it was 30 days and people were warned 30 days advanced. they were warned the night berethe day before so they could collect their things. some just moved ere else. some did take the citupn the some moved into shelters. that's way that shelters are -- excusee, encampments are typically cleared, is -- particular in cities where you've got an number of exg the problem. it isn't the example we've bn talking about with the law enforcement officer for the first time isncountering the person. smaller cities dave that capability but grants pass does have these outreach workers ands to the that's who carries on the dialue.

>> so we really have to speculate as to how thks, right? i mhis is the law right now in the ninth circuit. >> tinson principle? >> the robinson princi adopted in martin. my understanding is fo example, california says that's the law. we comply with it and there we are. >> yeah. are not asking for robinson to be overrul what they're objecting to is the injunctions that go well beyond that punishment. yes, i understand i'm just responding to some of the questions th've gotten to sort of does this rule work? can it w that sort of suggests that it's not alreppening on the ground in these places, that the aware of what is available, that people are being advised, that, you know, the principle of martin at least in the n circuit is we hold s as

there's a greater number homeless the jurisdiction cannot osecute homeless individuals for sitting, lying, sleeping. this is a new law. that's what the law is in this situation, rig? >> i don't want to say the clearance procedures work perfectly in every case o they're available. >> i'mt saying we don't have tolate how the new rule works. >> how it's supposed to work. >> yes. >> there may be imperfections. >> all right. let me ask you about whether or not you are askin for an extension of robinson. that's come up ae of times and i don't see it as an extension or whether that's bein asked for. so can explain whether of robinson happening today?on >> no, i don't think so at all cae as i said, the sleeping outside is an essential museum function? and if you say someone can't sleep outside, that's sort of-

has no place to sleep inside that's definition, really, of homelessness. >> so you're not suggesting that people should bsed from engaging in otherwise criminal conduct. we've heard this example about people stealing in order to eat. i mean, that would be a situation in which someone is active participating in what would be otherwise criminal behavior if anybody did it. d the idea, i guess, is that well, maybe these people nee do it and so that might be some sort of excuse. that's not what's happening in the facts here, correct? >> that's correct. and ing that i think that's important to keep in mind in this, grants pass can do this socaevery other city. so could states do it statede and eventually, a homeless person would have no to be. initial hypoof criminalizing eating outside, not that you would be doing something that is criminally culpable. >> yes i suppose there could be

ordinances that the city would have about where you can't eat >> that's time place -- final on. with respect with you mentioned state doing this. why isn't t feral government arguing that this case is in light of 1? this is the oregon recently passed statute that i mentioned earlier? why doesn't the government read that law as i do to preven grants pass from enforcing its ordinances to block sleeping outdoors to all places at all tis? >> i certainly agree it appears e a pretty stark inconsistency. it hasn't been applied. it has to objectively reasonable. >> so wh would your position be if the court decided that wh else that we don't need to hear this or reach this decision in this case, given

this new state ordinance >> that would be one possibility. it wouldn't answer theor robinson principle point. and the limitations o that point that has triggered the >> right, our typical rule. is there some other way that we don't comment on constitutional sues, correct? >> yes. that would be how the eight amendment could accommodate that. >> thank you. >> thank you, counsel. >> robinson v california holds unusual under the eightuel and amendment.

the challen ordinances affects and purpose. though the city describes this ordinanc as punishing camng on public property, it defines campsite as anyla a homeless person is while covered wh blanket. the city interprets and applies the ordinances to permit non-homeless people to rest in blankets while a homeless person who does the same thing breaks the law. the ordinances make it ysically impossible for homeless people to live in grants pass without facing endless fines and jail time the only person under robinson is whether there's any meaningful difference between a law that says bei heless is punishable and a law that says being homeless while breathing or sleeping or bnking is does adding a universal human attribute to the definition of the offense make the punishment conduct base instead of status based? thaner is no. the purpose and effect is extly the same as the first. to make people with the status

endlessly and punishable i they don't lee ants pass. all the oinances do is turn the city's homeless problems into someo ee's problems by forcing its residence into other juriicons. the only tool the city wants that it doesn't have is authority to impose a 24/7 city-wide sleeping ban that rc the homeless residence to move to anotr risdiction or face endless punishmt. the state police power is broad but does not push the burden o social problems on to other communieor the power to

compromise individual constitutional rights. i welcome the court's questions. >> in robinson, there was a stthat outlawed that said is there an ordinance here that says to be homeless is a crime? >> so the language for the purposes of a temporary place to live makes homeless into the definition of the offense as justice sotomayor was talking about earlier. so when you combine that language the campingefinition, what you have is an ordinance that says bng homeless while sleeping wh alanket is punishable. the question becomes when you statue the status to t universal attribute of sleeping does it transform the offense into conduct based punishment? i think the answer is no.

difference between being addicted to drug or homel immediately become not homeless if they find shelter. someone who is addicted to drug, it'so easy. seems to me that robinson, it's much easie to understand the drug addiction as an ongoing status. here, it is diert because you can move nd out of and into and out of the status as you would put it, as being homeless. >> so it's interesting w understand addiction is an immutable status.

>> what is the analytic approach that deciding whether something's a status or a situation of conduct? >> so t qstion is status is something thatson is when they're not dog anything. so being addicted, having cancer, being poor, are all statuses that you have with apart from any conduct. >> having cancer is not the same as being homeless, right? i'm just repeating myself because homeless, you can remove the homeless status instant if you moved to a shelter or a situations otherwisge. of course it can be move the other way as well if you're kicked out of the shelter or whatever. so that is a distinction from all these other things that have been labeled status, isn't it? >> i don't think so. because a cancer patient can go into remission they no longer have that stu i don't think there's any eson that being poor is a status it's something that you are apart from somethingou do. and at that point, you wouldn't

be a part of the class. bui don't think it changes the fact that it is a status. and what robinson found so offensive -- well, is being a bank robber a status? >> no, because being a bank robber means you rob banks. so the dion and the conduct -- >> violationin this -- violating this ordinance means you'reomess. so when you catch theum attribute of sleeping or breathing to that status doesn't make the punishment conduct >> counsel edwards, california 1941 shut down a law that made it a crime to transport an indigenous person, right? it is a condition that can change over time, but the law was aimed at the transport of the person who wasn't morally

rehencable. >> yes. >> it's woven throughout our execution. what robinson held is that when that expulsion is effectuated roh status based. >> it violates the punishment clause punishment. >> how do you defind a coy? justice alito was describe how new jersey has so many tightly woven municipalities clo together and the chief justice just talking about if the a new homeless shelt with lots ofs across the border 10

minutes way, there were some back and forth and not necessagreement on that. what is your position? how do you define th community? take that aexple outside the limits of grants p >> yes. i'm not concerned. i don't have a problems with saying that a homeless personn grants pass has legal and phical access to a shelter that's just over the lines if that's in fact true. lots of jurisdictions limit their homeless shelters to people who are residents. so just to go clear, the e no suggestions in the record here that there were any shelters available outside of grants pass. >> understood. so community doesn't need to be determined by jurisdictional lines? because let's see. i'm asll of this because in response to justice sotomayor, you were pointing out that we have history and tradition of not saying you can unt homeless people or the poor out of your jurisdiction and on to others. so, or out of your community and

on to others i think how you phrase it. so i'm askw do we know whatse lines are and you're saying it doesn't have to be jurisdictions. >> no, i think jurisdictions matters cae that tells us the lines in which whatever ordinance or statute applies. when shelter is availab, the ordinance are e psible because nay punish the conduct of not goi t shelters. for the reasons that you say, a lot of municipalits not allow people from outside of the jurisdicti tuse their shelters.

>> is that cruel and unusual punishment? >> no, that wouldn't be punishment. is t iliction of suffering for a crime. we have a stus based punishment scheme that is inflicting punishment within the meaning of the ehtmendment. >> counsel -- i'm sorry, chief nishnt. >> no, i'm good. >> do you want to address so of the line drawing problems? justice go pointing out eating is a basic h need and it's not the cat soup kitchens and social services will always be able to meet itnd he asked whether the eight amendment would be punishment stealing food. you mi ask the same questions about trespass and squadding i structures if that was the best alternative. how do we dra these difficult lines about public urination and those sorts of things?

>> so start with stealing food. eang food is not parthe definition of homelessness and notot a universal attribute. i would put that outside of the scope of any of the arguments that we're making here. if you had a law thasa homeless cannot defecate anywhereitn city limits, on public propey,t is almost -- it's hard to imagine situations e -- to go. >> a homeless person, theo facilities available and a homeless person has no place to go? >> there are commercial establishmen. i don't know that anyone's pointed to a jurisdiction where >> what's the constitutional prin take myhetical. say there's not commercial establishments. don' want non-patrons coming in use the facilities and there's a rule that says no

public urination? >> so one distinction between urination and defatn and sleeping is that sleeping outsid is part of the definition of homelessss homelessness is lacking fixed reignite timeddress. so the sleeping prohibition goes more of the status than defecation. >> what is the defense essentially functions as an eight amendment in this context so we don't have to limits that you're talkings of about? >> not at all to clear tt that's true as justi kedler point it out in oregon law but so far, the oregon crts have not applied it to th circumstance. it also wldn't be available

for the citations thaweave here. but the questionsbo necessity events go to the injunctive posture of that case. it's a necessity defense and a criminal prosecution. itoo out the eight amendment claim. but going to the question about injunctive relief, does the plaintiff have a crebl threat of futurehment? the courts here did find that the plaintiffs had shown a cr threat of future punishment. and so i think that reinvolves the issue for t statement. >> those lines, we haven't mentioned it yet but in the briefing, there's a discussion

that the eight amendment holding withespect to status came out any vearial testing. wasn't what was argued by the parts. it didn't have a whole lot of citation or support. came kind of in a breezy paragraph. >> right. and some have suggested that that's really a mistake because he eight ameme's about punishments. it doesn't prevent states -- limits state'sapity to engage in passing laws that make conduct or actions or anything a crime. it just goes to the nature of what punishments follow. tting aside the excessive fines clause. >> yeah. >> so there's a lot of discussion in the briefbo that. and some suggestioth really is the 14th amendment that should be doinwo here if there is work to be de. because some form of a necessity defense h been always understo as in hearing due

process from the founding, and whether that can be enforced through state laws which might differ, but have to nonetheless cover the terror just reactions to that punishment. >> so robinson predates it but it's the same principle which is when y can identify an exicit source for right, you local the right in that amendment andotore generalized notions of due process. so what the robi court did -- >> here, the more limited -- i mean, let me just play with that for a minute. the more normal home for a necessity type argument is due press. that's where it's aaybeen understood. not an amendment havingo with punishments.

and you're not really attack the punishments here you're saying any niment is impermissible. and that is a classic necessity dens >> it's right that robinson descbewhat it was doing as saying that the eightmendment prohibited therinalization. you see that language i think owens into the utah. i agree it seems like an update. >> wouldn't that get r ohi off status conduct distinction that we're struggling wither today? beuse if it's an necessity, it doesn't matter why it's a necessity. every person can make their own argument authy it was necessary. and the courts will decide. weon't get into the status conduct stuff that robinson seems to invite. >> well here, we don't have

necessarily a necessity defense. so that wouldn't be very satisfying. >> you don't think your clients have a good ney defense? >> the oregot have not applied -- >> you haven't asked them to apply it punishment. hey've had a couple ofases like that that mr. kneedler -- >> how are they going? so far, they have not applied the necessity defense. let's he possibility that it might apply but they haven't >> why not?yet. >> they didn't find it was cessary during those circumstances and -- >> did they rule out t might be necessary? possibility.en that but i would ay the civil citation -- but the fines here are not subject, i don't think, or it's not clear to the ity defense. so it wouldn't take care the -- tt excessive fines clause there, though, right? >> yeah. >> that's not before us ei punishment. >> we have raised the fines before this court because our challenges to thege of punishments and historically th how the court has looked

at f excessive fines cuse and the punt clause together. we're in a very unfortunate posture re that we have claims thatve both claims and punishment. the court can say it is not going reach on theines. >> what is your definition of the status of homelessness? is it the lack of a place to stay indoors on a particular night or is it something broader than that? >> so homelene -- >> it shod quire more than that punishment. >> homelessness is defined as lacking a fixed adequate regular night time address. so if you have a home, you have a home -- the second part of our class definition focuses on ether the homeless person has

access to shelter. that's not bau that's part of the status. it's because whesoone has access to shelter, then the ordinances are not punishing them for the status for the conductf not going. >>eli ask the question because if homelessness is defined as simply lacking a place to stay indoors on a particular night, then the is an ironclad connection beee the conduct which is sleeping outside and the status of homelessness. but ihomelessness is defined to require more than tt, then my question woul be whether someone who is lacking a place to stay on a particular night or r a particular period of time is hels if the reason why the person find himself or herself in that status is, for example, the person refuses to take anti-psychotic medicine that's beenrescribed or refuses to go to drug rehab or

rehabilitation for alcoholism or thpeon has chosen to move from one place where the person might have a shelter or ho where the person cou live to another place, what about all of that? >> so the status of homelessness is something that only changes once the person has a home you. lose your home, you're homeless. you have a home aga, then you're not in the status anore. i think what your question gets is that secd piece which is whether a person h shelter. that could change from day-to-day. and so -- >>o at's not really what my question gets at. u n draw a distinction -- status is different from conduct. but there are some itaes of conduct that areloly tied to status or if homelessness is defined as simply lacking a place to stay in a particular night, they amount to the same thing the definition of holessness encompasses the

conduct of sleepinide. so my question is whether this is -- what if the persofis that person in a homeless ste because of prior life choicesr the refusal to make future life choices? that's the question. >>ea so our definition of lacking access to shelter is lacking physical access to shelter and you're looking their situaon on that particular night. robinson certainly didn't do that sort of analysis with respect to addiction. but there could be situation where is there is such a tigh causal nexus between a choice a person has made eir lack of slter access that you say the person lood t to take the shelter.

>> oncyo move away from the definition that makes the inquiry basically logical, then you get into the question of accessing close toheonduct and you do run into problems with the person who is a kleptomaniac or a person who suffers from peedphilia -- pedophilia. w does the court access ho close -- assess how close a person can be? >> they would be outside of our claim. i thought you made a very

tereing remark and response to justice ali and i'm just trying to clarify. you seem to say that homelessness as you've defined is not lacking assess to shelter on a particular night. am i right about that? >> that's right. i used the high deon which is that homelessness means you lack a fixed regular adequate night time address. >> that kind of thing going back to the chief justice's original question, that's not changing night to night? >> no. it can change over time that a diagnosis could change over time. >> and the other part that was interesting to me is that assuming that your definition, homelessness, lacking a fixed regular address someone does have access to a shelter, ordinance in that situation i thought you said is operating unish the act of not going

to the shelter as opposed to punishing the status of being homeless punishment. y, that's the exact reasonable time place manner restriction aren't a problem because if you have time, place and manner restriction, y'r punishing the conduct of not going to sleep where you're allowed too. that rationale doesn't work when someone has nowhere to go. >> so we made thipot in our recent opposition. we dsay mootness because we don't have a injunction unr the oregon law yet. i don't think there's any question that the ordinances fall under the oregon law. it was intended to codify main it requires that any sort of restrictions on sleepingr resting outside are reasonable with rescto homeless individual clearlyhe ordinances here

don't meet that standard. i don't have any concerns with the court saying that it appears as oregon law revolvehi whole issue. so we're dismissing as however the court wants to resolve the case. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry, the plainto died here has used the provisional state credits at the time of class ccation. so she no longer had a shelter who was willing to take h. the hard hypothetical that justice alito was saying is the person who owns a dog. >> yeah. >> or let's say a mentally ill person. you have the same responses to government? >> so i would like to live in a world where separating someone from their pet is cruel but 's outside the scope of our claim beuse we are just talking about physical and legal access to shelter. so if one turns dow a shelter

offer that's physically and gay available because of their dog, they would not be within the scope othr claim to get to thatenl health the person's mental health-- if sues made the shelterthly unavailable to them because if they went tre, they would be a substantial ri of bodily harm or death, then i would say the shelter isn't physically available. you coulha a shelter who won't take people with menl health problems. i would say that if the shelter psically and legally available, then they're outside thscope of our claim but they might have ot claims that applies with restricts the city's ability to punish them for not going to thatlace. >> thank you, counsel. can you go from having a fixed regular address tnot having one? >> yes. people -- >> thanks. >> justice thomas? n robinson, a narcotics

fir testified that based on his experience, the marks on the defendant's arm suggests that was an addict. do we have anything like that e an expert testifies that these people -- that the individuals here are homeles >> so here, the legal burden was on the plaintiffs tohow that they were homeless. the lor courts found that depositions --ions and >> what i'm interested in is the st you say that this is the equivalent of robinson and i'm trying to determine whe the status of homelessness was determined and how it plays a role in this case. bed on the declarations and depositions of the named plaintiffs we talked about the rao between beds to

population. thninth circuit rejected that as a hard and fast rule but the lack of shelter beds igrants pass provides credibility to the class members declarations wh they said they had nowhere to go. i don't understand the city to ever, ever contested that the named plaintiffs are homeless. >> and i think what's confusing me is when i reath ordinance, the ordinance anti-camping ordinance. would a backpacker who happen to be in the area for a few days be allowed to camp on public proper? >> i think theoretically, no, but i would say that the city has never -- it was not able to identify any -- >> i undstd that but it would apply to a backpacker. >> so i tnk -- it would depend on the ccutances the line that the police officers drew in their deposition was if they st aon-homeless person lying

on a blanket, they wouldn't enforce the ordinance -- >> someone with a backpac who's been wandering around for a couple of years in the continental divide or somethg. >> so i can imagine if i' putting myself in the place of e officers whoerdeposed, they might say no, that person isn'tetting up a temporary place to live. they're just traveling through town. that particular hypothetical didn't come up punishment. >> so that would not violate the anti-ccamping? >> i don't know. >> i thi of e premises of your argument is that this is not good policy forhe homeless good policy would help homeless individuals transit get mental health treatment get substance abusement, job assistance. and this doesn't ffill

those objectives. and maybe you're not saying that but i'm curious whether you think s good policy in terms of incentivizing or bad you must think it's bad and i'm rious why punishment. >> i don't think we've made that argument. it's seess the brief. i would st on the incentivizing, it's a non-sector because the only question here is whether it violates the eight amendment when someone has no access to no shelter maybe what you're talking about is no purpe. this court has recognized when a punishment scheme has no purpose,t inflicts suffering anth is cruel and unusual punishment. and i will say at thi point, the city has not ever identified any purpose f punishing homeless people wh do not have

access tolters. i've said a number of times. this case is only about sleeping outside when there's no shelters so that purpose is significant. >> we've heard a lot about how it's more doll have a more >> that is wrong.s policy. i'll go back to my opening. i gave a who lt of the things that the city is allowed to do deour claim. the only thing that they cannot do is impose a4/7 sleeping ban at makes it impossible for homeless people to stay in the jusdtion. and they have a lot of briefs on their side from local governments. almost t eirety of what those briefs are complaining about is nott issue in this case. so when you have injunctions, that'snd the fourth amendment. a lot of the injunctions are under the 14th amendment

includinghene that the city identifies. it's remarkable that when the city was tin to identify the best example for its reply brief, it chose one involving a different constitutional delay. >> thank you. >> mrs. barrett. justice jackson? >> can a person go from being addicted to drugs to not? >> under common -- as we think about it in terms of modern medicine, the answer is no. bu the robinson court certainly thought that was the case. six years ago, we didn't have the same understan of addiction. >> so your view of robinson is that it doesn't really matter the permanency of the condition. it's sti status. >> it thought that addiction was a status that could change punishment. >> thank you. >> thank you, counsel. rebuttal? >> thank you. cas is worlds away from on.

the eight amendment does not answer any of the questions that we've been discussing today and that is not to extend robinson. all of these que are first, i'd like to start with the united states's position. that wouldlso bring chaos. it would be a disaster if martin were to remain on the books in any form. itnot make a difference if the inquiry is pre-enforcement or post-enforc all the same questions come up out whether the per conduct comes up, whether the shelter is adequate, where it , rules that have all of that. and i'd like to clarify how all because it would be impossible for people on the ground to understand and predict w court would say about the shelters that are availad the alternatives that are available and the choices that were made and the difficulty of so here, how it worksder

the grants pass policy. i'll direct thert to page 155 on the jointendix. there it says officers are required to give a 24-hour before issuing a citation. so i want to just focus that for a moment. will the officer know when e or he comes backther the individual has another place to go? there's no way to know the answer t. so they would have to take their word for it, perhaps. so, it would lead to all of those same problems. side talks about banishment and all of that. respondents have remained in grass for years. they talked an isolated statemen from a community meeting. that was a three-hour meeting. there are 20 pages of minutes. it's one sentence. what that full context shows us is a ranging discussion policy problems.se difficult

and how the city was try incentivize people to accept shelter in dewith a small group that was causing serious problems and crime in the city and they're trying to balance those who wouldn't take the help with the city's needs to keep their public spaces open. wh ninth circuit constitutionalized this area, it ft cities with really no oice, either keep building enough shelter that ma may not be ade or suitable to someone's prees or be forced to give up all of your publicces that. is what's happened. we've seen suspension of enforcement of theseaseball basic laws that are so important the line drawing problems are never-ending. that is exactly why powell, justice gorsuch, to your point, out powell and the plurali there said that if we embar on this journey we st

constitutionalizing laws that address co the line drawing problems will be endless. and so that is a reason not to extend robinson here. so, i just want to make, again, basic eight amendment point here, which is thae are low-level fines and very short r repeatenders that are in effect in many other sdictions. this is not unusual in any way. it is certainly not cruel. we can just point to our appendixr reply that goes through jurisn from west hollywood, california to watertown, massachusettse the same types of policies. the policy questions in this case are very difficult and i think that is what has com

across today. the eighth amendment question, hee punishments are the source of punishmentshat have been held to be permissible since the founding, really are in use today, not inay unusual. we heard of things about guessing how this would work in like courts would to have me some sort of rule so that they could tell a jurisdiction chico like the plac it set aside for camping was adequat when the federal court said no, it wast, because it was outdoors or clemente was threatened with lawsuits because idn't provide cell phone ges inignated for camping, or san rafael where the tyard said 200 feet between pence was too much and that feet was the maximum under the

eighth amendment. for all those reasons, the court should reverse. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> thursday, the u.s. supreme court hears oral arguments in a case on whether former president donald trump has presidential immunityst them in a his alleged role in tempt to overturn the 2020 elec results. live ce of the oral arguments begins at 10:00 eastern on c-span, c-span.org and fe span video at. saturday, april 20 seven, watch the white house corresndts association annu dner with weekend update coanchor colin jost as the anchor. live covere om inside the ballroom begins at 8:00 eastern c-span. you can also watch on c-span.org or the free c-span now video app. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's

online store. browse through our latest collection of products, apparel, books, home to core, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps to support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? no, it is way more than that. >> comcast is creating wi-fi enabled lift centers so that students from low income families can get it they knew to be ready for anything. comct supports c-span as a public service alongside these other televion providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. this is jane