The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a bid by Boise to overturn a lower court’s ruling that prohibited authorities in the Idaho city from prosecuting homeless people for staying outside if a bed at an emergency shelter is not available.
The justices left in place a ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that fining or jailing homeless people for sleeping in public or unauthorized places violates the U.S. Constitution’s bar on cruel and unusual punishment, a decision the city said threatens public health and safety.
ADVERTISEMENT
The case centered on two Boise ordinances that prohibit camping or “disorderly conduct” by lodging or sleeping in public. The city said it needed to enforce the ordinances to prevent the formation of encampments that can lead to unsanitary conditions and crimes such as drug dealing and gang activity, and to keep public spaces accessible for residents, visitors and wildlife.
The dispute began when six people - Robert Martin, Robert Anderson, Lawrence Lee Smith, Basil Humphrey, Janet Bell and Pamela Hawkes, all current or former homeless Boise residents - sued the city in 2009, arguing that the laws violated their constitutional rights.
ADVERTISEMENT
They had each been prosecuted under the ordinances and fined between $25 and $75. Five were sentenced to time served, while Hawkes twice served one day in jail.
The 9th Circuit last year ruled that the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibits punishing homeless individuals if there are more of them than available shelter beds. The ruling allowed the plaintiffs to seek an injunction against enforcement of the city’s ordinances.
“As long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter,” the appeals court said.
WASHINGTON - Hoping to salvage the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh and cement a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court for a generation, Republicans have chosen a woman who prosecuted sex crimes in Arizona to question President Donald Trump’s nominee about sexual assault allegations.
Rachel Mitchell is seen in this Maricopa County Attorney's Office photo from Phoenix, Arizona, U.S., released on September 26, 2018. Courtesy Maricopa County Attorney's Office/Handout via REUTERS
In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, Rachel Mitchell, and not the Republican committee members, all of whom are male, will question Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused him of sexually assaulting her in high school.
SPONSORED
Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said they chose Mitchell for her experience and objectivity. She is on leave as chief of the special victims division in the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in Phoenix, Arizona.
As the special victims division head, she supervises prosecutors handling cases of sexual assault, child molestation, child prostitution and computer-related sexual offenses. She had served as a prosecutor since 1993.
Her office said she was not available for interviews on Wednesday.
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room where Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh will testify is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., September 26, 2018. REUTERS/Jim Bourg
Mitchell was drawn to prosecuting sex crimes after assisting a senior lawyer in a case against a youth choir director, she told a magazine affiliated with a Christian organization in 2012. “It struck me how innocent and vulnerable the victims of these cases really were,” she said.
One of Mitchell’s notable victories came in 2005 when she secured a guilty verdict against Catholic priest Paul LeBrun for sexually abusing boys in Arizona in the 1980s and 1990s. He was sentenced to 111 years in prison.
In 2011, Mitchell was criticized over what the Phoenix New Times newspaper called a “slap-on-the-wrist” plea deal for an elder in the Jehovah’s Witness church who had abused a Phoenix teenager.
A statement from Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, her boss, said Mitchell has a “caring heart” for victims and has lectured around the country on sexual assault investigations and prosecutions.
“The American people can be confident that Rachel Mitchell’s experience as a conscientious prosecutor, trained to seek justice, protect victims, and pursue truth will assist the Senate Judiciary Committee in performing its important task,” he said.
Blasey Ford’s attorneys have objected to the use of an outside counsel at Thursday’s hearing, saying Ford has repeatedly requested that senators handle the questioning.
“This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate,” Ford lawyer Michael Bromwich said in a letter sent to Grassley on Monday and seen by Reuters.
Ford, a university professor in California, has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in 1982 when both were students at a private high school in Bethesda, Maryland, a suburb of Washington. Her allegations, along with those of another woman, have put Kavanaugh’s lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court in jeopardy. Kavanaugh has denied the allegations.
Another woman came forward on Wednesday with yet more claims of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh, further inflaming an already contentious confirmation process.
The choice of a new justice for the Supreme Court is pivotal, as it often gives the final word on highly contentious laws and its nine judges have an immense impact on US political life.
ADVERTISEMENT
What has Mr Trump said?
In a series of tweets, the president again delivered his full support for Judge Kavanaugh, saying he was a "fine man, with an impeccable reputation".
He went on: "I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!"
He added: "Why didn't someone call the FBI 36 years ago?"
Mr Trump also attacked "radical left wing politicians who don't want to know the answers, they just want to destroy and delay".
Following the president's controversial comments, the hashtag #WhyIDidntReport began trending on Twitter, with thousands sharing their experiences of sexual harassment and assault.
By Friday afternoon, the hashtag had over 122,000 tweets from both women and men.
President Trump had also weighed in on the process on Thursday, telling Fox News: "I don't think you can delay it any longer. They've delayed it a week already... they have to get on with it."
The Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Judge Kavanaugh had originally been scheduled for Thursday.
What was Prof Ford's account?
The details of the alleged assault during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County, Maryland, were carried in the Washington Post this week when Prof Ford decided to reveal her identity and tell the story.
She made it clear in the Post that she had told no-one of the incident in any detail until 2012 when she attended couples therapy with her husband.
The psychology professor at Palo Alto University in California said she was being treated for what she said had been the long-term effects of the incident.
She told a senior Democratic lawmaker of her allegation in a confidential letter this summer and only went public after it was leaked.
Judge Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied the allegation.
It'll only get nastier
Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC North America reporter
Donald Trump, much to the reported surprise of some in the White House, had largely held his tongue about the twists in the Brett Kavanaugh nomination.
That ended on Friday morning.
With his nominee in peril - the level of danger seems to vary by the hour - the president has now jumped into the debate with both feet. His suggestion that "loving" parents would have reported an alleged sexual assault to the police and implication that the incident may or may not be "as bad as she says" are exactly the kind of inflammatory statement some Republicans feared the president would feel drawn to make.
The president's comments will almost certainly help rally his base to Mr Kavanaugh's defence. It could also damage support for the judge's nomination - already fairly low - among women and independents who could cast key votes in the upcoming mid-term elections.
In the end, however, what matters most for Mr Kavanaugh's fate is how Mr Trump's involvement affects Republican support in the Senate. The confirmation process is already hopelessly politicised, as Republicans accuse Democrats of bad-faith delay tactics and Democrats renew their call for a wider hearing process.
The only thing that seems clear is that the process will get nastier before it's all over.
Where does the committee say?
Committee chairman Chuck Grassley had called for written testimony by this Friday from Prof Ford and scheduled a hearing on the matter for Monday.
Her lawyer, Debra Katz, rejected this and in a phone call to the panel on Thursday spelled out her client's conditions for testifying.
They include:
Prof Ford will not testify if Judge Kavanaugh is in the room
Judge Kavanaugh must testify first
There can be no appearance before next Thursday
Questions to be posed preferably by senators and not outside counsel
Mark Judge, who is reported to have been a witness to the alleged assault, should be subpoenaed to appear
Agrees to a public hearing but wants limits on the media coverage
Will the conditions be accepted?
There are problems with at least three of the requests.
Media captionWhy it can take sexual assault allegations years to come out
The Senate Judiciary Committee would have to change the Monday hearing.
It is also not traditional for the accused to testify first and not have an opportunity for rebuttal.
White House adviser Kellyanne Conway said: "Asking for that usual sequence to be reversed is very unusual."
Neither is it traditional for any subpoenas to be issued for the nomination process.
However, Ms Katz suggested there appeared to be room for negotiation when she sent a letter to the committee after the phone call, saying: "The only issue I said was a deal breaker was that Dr Ford cannot appear at a hearing on Monday."
Threats - and support - for all sides
Prof Ford, Mr Kavanaugh and the judge's wife have all been receiving threats, as the case becomes increasingly contentious.
Ms Katz said of her client: "She's been receiving death threats which have been reported to the FBI and she and her family have been forced out of their home."
Media captionAlumni of Ford's school: "We believe her"
But supporters of both Judge Kavanaugh and Prof Ford have also been vocal.
A group of friends and former colleagues of the judge held a press briefing on Friday behind the banner #IStandWithBrett.
Maura Fitzgerald, a friend since high school, said: "The allegation against Brett is inconsistent with everything that I have known about him as a person."
Twelve of Prof Ford's family members have written an open letter, posted on Twitter, in which they call her "highly ethical", adding that "her honesty is above reproach".
"Chrissy is not someone who chooses to be in the spotlight," the letter said.
![[Gallery] The F-15 Is No Match For This Plane](https://images.outbrainimg.com/transform/v3/eyJpdSI6ImZjNjI4MTZmMDgxOWM2MmViMGZmMzUzYmZkMWM4YTFiMWZkN2Y4YTc2NDdmODhkOGFjM2I1ZWM2Y2Q0NjMxODAiLCJ3IjoxNjAsImgiOjkwLCJkIjoxLjUsImNzIjowLCJmIjowfQ.webp "[Gallery] The F-15 Is No Match For This Plane")
