[legitster]

Link to the actual opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf

> "Still, no one has asked us to reconsider Robinson. Nor do we see any need to do so today. Whatever its persuasive force as an interpretation of the Eighth Amendment, it cannot sustain the Ninth Circuit’s course since Martin."

> "Public camping ordinances like those before us are nothing like the law at issue in Robinson. Rather than criminalize mere status, Grants Pass forbids actions like “occupy[ing] a campsite” on public property “for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live. Under the city’s laws, it makes no difference whether the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker on vacation passing through town, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building.”

The argument is pretty interesting. You can't make something that is normally illegal legal just because of some trait of the person. If a park has posted hours or parking rules, you can't ask someone for proof they don't have a home to determine they broke the rules or not. Which is different than rounding up all of the homeless legally using the space during the day and telling them they have to leave.

They do have a problem with the 9th circuit's interpretation of the Eight Amendment. In the court's view, the eight amendment is about protecting you from unjust punishments. But you can't use that argument to determine if something is a crime.