Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
August 8, 2024 at 10:05 PM. PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The small Oregon city at the heart of a recent landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows cities to enforce outdoor sleeping bans has voted ...
Homeless-rights activists hold a rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court on April 22, 2024 in Washington, D.C., as the Supreme Court heard oral argument in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices disagreed with the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco and ruled that it is not "cruel and unusual" punishment for city officials to forbid homeless people from ...
Boise, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that city officials in Boise, Idaho, could not enforce an anti-camping ordinance whenever its homeless population exceeds the number of available beds in its homeless shelters. Since the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal to this case in 2019, it became binding precedent within the ...
The appellate court relied on a 1962 Supreme Court decision that said the Eighth Amendment prevented criminalizing someone’s status — in this case, homelessness. The 1962 case, Robinson v.
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), is a landmark decision [1] of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and subsection (b) of Section 4 ...
(Reuters) -Civil rights groups warned that Friday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of punishing people for sleeping outdoors would exacerbate homelessness, while ...
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), [1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.