评论
打印
So, Reis, as you say, what’s happening in Grants Pass, it kind of is playing out in so many cities around the country where you have groups of people who are sleeping outside and this question of, like, what should be done, if anything, but not all of these cases make their way all the way to the Supreme Court.
所以，里斯，正如你所说，这座城市在发生的事情在全国许多城市都在上演，有一群人睡在外面，这个问题是，如果有的话，应该怎么做。然而，并不是所有的案件都进入了最高法院。
Can you tell me a little bit about how this issue became a legal case and how it became a Supreme Court case?
你能告诉我这个问题是如何成为法律案件，如何成为最高法院的案件的？
Yeah, it all started with a lawsuit in 2018.
是的，这一切都始于2018年的一起诉讼。
It was filed against Grants Pass on behalf of three unhoused individuals, Debra Blake, Gloria Johnson, and John Logan.
是个没有住房的人，黛布拉·布莱克，格洛丽亚·约翰逊和约翰·洛根对格兰茨帕斯提起诉讼的。
They’d all been homeless in Grants Pass for years, and they’d racked up thousands of dollars in fines because of the city’s anti-camping laws.
多年来，他们都在格兰茨帕斯流浪，由于该市禁止露营的法律，他们已经积累了数千美元的罚款。
So that case has been winding its way through the court system for years since then.
因此，自那以后，该案一直在法院系统中曲折前进。
In 2021, actually, Debra Blake died and she was still homeless at the time.
事实上，在2021年，黛布拉·布莱克去世了，当时她仍然无家可归。
So the two other plaintiffs, Gloria Johnson and John Logan, are now the lead plaintiffs in the case.
因此，另外两名原告格洛丽亚·约翰逊和约翰·洛根现在是该案的主要原告。
So then what are these plaintiffs arguing?
那么，这些原告在辩解什么呢？
Like, what is their legal position for why what the city is doing should not be allowed?
比如，为什么这座城市的所作所为不应该被允许，他们的法律地位是什么？
Yeah.
嗯。
So the core issue in this case is whether governments can punish people for camping or sleeping outside, specifically when they have nowhere else to go.
因此，本案的核心问题是，政府是否可以惩罚露营或露宿的人，特别是当他们无处可去的时候。
And what the unhoused plaintiffs are arguing is that Grants Pass is punishing them for a status that they can’t control.
没有住房的原告辩称，格兰茨帕斯是在惩罚他们无法控制的地位。
They’re homeless, not through any fault of their own and they’re being punished because of it.
他们无家可归，不是因为他们自己的过错，他们正因此而受到惩罚。
And they say that is a violation of the Eighth Amendment, specifically the cruel and unusual punishment clause, because it essentially, they say, criminalizes them for existing.
他们说，这违反了第八修正案，特别是残忍和不寻常的惩罚条款，因为他们说，这基本上是危害他们生存的犯罪行为。
And so what does the city say in response to that?
那么，这座城市对此有何回应？
Like, what are their lawyers arguing?
比如，他们的律师在辩解什么？
My colleague Ann Marimow spoke with a lead attorney for the city, Theane Evangelis, who said that cities across the country need maximum flexibility to deal with a problem as complicated as homelessness.
我的同事安-马里莫采访了该市的首席律师提亚尼-伊万格里斯，她说，全国各地的城市需要最大的灵活性来处理像流浪者这样复杂的问题。
If the Supreme Court were to agree with the 9th Circuit, then cities across the country would find their hands tied as they work to address the urgent homelessness crisis.
如果最高法院同意第九巡回法院的意见，那么全国各地的城市将发现自己在努力解决紧迫的无家可归危机时束手无策。
We’ve seen that cities have been paralyzed and unable to address very dangerous, unsafe, and unhealthy encampments.
我们已经看到，城市已经陷入瘫痪，无措，危险和不健康的营地。
So the city says that they need these laws because encampments pose a health risk to unhoused and housed residents alike and they need ordinances like this in order to clear encampments and control encampments.
因此该市表示，他们需要这些法律，因为营地对无房居民和有房居民的健康都构成了风险，他们需要这样的条例来清理和控制营地。
But that’s not actually the central issue in this case.
但这实际上并不是本案的核心问题。
The case is not about whether cities can clear encampments.
这不是城市能否清理营地的问题。
In fact, cities are allowed to do so, and Grants Pass has continued to, every 72 hours, clear its parks, encampments.
事实上，城市被允许这样做，格兰茨帕斯继续每72小时清理一次它的公园和营地。
