Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Martin v. Boise (full case name Robert Martin, Lawrence Lee Smith, Robert Anderson, Janet F. Bell, Pamela S. Hawkes, and Basil E. Humphrey v.City of Boise) was a 2018 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding anti-camping ordinances targeting homeless people, effectively overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024.
An advocate protests at a homeless camp adjacent to Heer Park as it is cleared up by the city in 2022. Despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that paves the way for communities to more aggressively ...
However, the Spokane Police Department couldn’t enforce it until June, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 9th U.S. Circuit of the Court of Appeals’ Martin v. Boise decision. Boise ...
Grants Pass, Oregon, sought to impose anti-camping, anti-sleeping, and parking exclusion ordinances to dissuade homeless individuals from residing on its public land.. The Oregon Law Center, which supports low-income Oregonians, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Debra Blake (1959–2021) in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon in October 2018. [4]
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.
The Supreme Court's decision in City of Boerne made a significant impact on the states' abilities to enforce laws, including those pertaining to historic preservation. Under RFRA, an otherwise neutral state law—such as zoning, or historic preservation ordinances—needed to be scrutinized if its enforcement involved a religious group or ...
“Today’s United States Supreme Court ruling is a victory for common sense and judicial restraint. Justice Neil Gorsuch states it perfectly: ‘Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many.
Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019), was a civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that probable cause should generally defeat a retaliatory arrest claim brought under the First Amendment, unless officers under the circumstances would typically exercise their discretion not to make an arrest.