Connect with us

News

Supreme Court Judgment on Homelessness Might Lead to More Prosecution

Published

on

Supreme Court Judgment on Homelessness Might Lead to More Prosecution

(VOR News) – Advocates for the homeless say that the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in a significant case on camping prohibitions may exacerbate the homeless situation, trapping more individuals in a cycle of incarceration, debt, and street life.

On Friday, the Supreme Court decided to favor Grants Pass, Oregon, a tiny community with a high homeless population. According to attorneys for Grants Pass who talked with USA TODAY, the judges ruled that the town may continue with its prohibition on sleeping in public with bedding, which would prevent unhoused people from staying in parks. Individuals who breach the prohibition will face penalties and potentially prison time.

In their 6-3 judgment, the court said that enforcing a camping ban does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The result reversed a lower court decision that had prevented the prohibition from being imposed.

“This is a pretty hard blow, and it’s devastating,” said Helen Cruz, 49, who feeds homeless people in Grants Pass parks and has long opposed the camping prohibition. She said that she had been homeless for most of her adult life. Recently, she was allowed to reside at a church where she volunteers.

Cruz told USA TODAY that the finding was the worst conceivable consequence for the hundreds of people living outdoors in Grants Pass. “These individuals who had nothing had a glimmer of hope, which has been taken away from them. How far can you beat someone with nothing? “I don’t understand,” Cruz replied through tears.

National homelessness campaigners said Friday that the court’s decision was tremendously disappointing. “We are extremely disappointed, and we are concerned about how quickly some communities will implement local ordinances that are now legal under this ruling,” said Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

Since 2018, communities in most of the western United States have been unable to enforce 24-hour restrictions on public camping, making it more difficult to dismantle big tent encampments, according to officials.

Cities with substantial unsheltered homeless populations, like Los Angeles, San Diego, and Seattle, may now enact rules to restrict individuals from sleeping outdoors. Evangelis, the lawyer who defended the case for Grants Pass, said Friday that the court’s decision provides “urgent relief” to towns trying to handle homeless camps.

“Years from now, I hope that we will look back on today’s watershed ruling as the turning point in America’s homelessness crisis,” Evangelis said in a written statement. Policy experts who backed Grants Pass in the case said the Supreme Court’s ruling was a triumph for local governments nationwide.

“The court made the right decision not to become micromanagers of local homeless policy across the entire United States of America,” said Judge Glock, director of research at the Manhattan Institute, a think tank that supports individual liberty and the rule of law, and submitted documents to the Supreme Court in support of Grants Pass.

In Oregon, a 2021 state law provides certain safeguards for unhoused persons in Grants Pass and across the state in the face of 24-hour sleeping prohibitions, but localities may still impose tighter camping laws after the Supreme Court overruled a lower court ruling.

Mayor Sara Bristol of Grants Pass expressed her satisfaction with the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of the city. She informed USA TODAY that she and the city council would start examining the ruling and state legislation to determine the best course of action.

“I’m relieved that Grants Pass will be able to reclaim our city parks for recreation,” Bristol said. She said that her community has “been trying to find solutions” for homelessness, calling it a “complex issue.” An authorized camping site or a new shelter may have been established as a solution, but the city opposed both ideas.

Ruth Sears, the owner of a dance studio building next to the site of a previously proposed shelter in downtown Grants Pass, expressed doubt that the court’s decision would address homelessness in her community.

“Unless their idea is they’ll go somewhere else, which is obviously not a real good answer for the homeless people,” 72-year-old Sears said, “I don’t see how it’s really going to help.”

Legal experts representing the homeless plaintiffs in the case are concerned that additional communities would enact like laws, reducing the number of places where homeless individuals can reside outside the law.

“What if every jurisdiction passes these laws? As an attorney with the National Coalition for the Homeless in Florida, David Peery predicted they would soon be seen nationwide.

According to Oliva, the penalties associated with camping and sleeping prohibitions would only make people’s homelessness worse by making it more difficult for them to get employment and homes due to debt and a criminal record. Oliva said, “We know they can’t pay those tickets.”

Grants Pass Homeless: How does the narrative of a homeless lady fit into the larger national discussion?

Grants Pass authorities now have additional power to clamp down on individuals living outdoors. Previously, they imposed penalties and implemented a statute that forbade people from pitching tents in the same location for an extended period of time.

Eric Tars, the Legal Director of the National Homeless Law Center, said this Supreme Court ruling would exacerbate homelessness. “Harmful approaches like criminalization are a crutch to avoid dealing with their affordable housing problems,” Tars said. In a similar vein, Oliva labeled camping prohibitions as a “fake solution” to the catastrophe that is unfolding in American homeless encampments.

Advocates argue that cities should concentrate on affordable housing

On Friday, Oliva said that local mayors and municipal councils nationwide must remember to serve unhoused populations and housed citizens who want the homelessness problem resolved.

Oliva believes that instead of cracking down harder on individuals in encampments by enacting harsher camping prohibitions, local elected authorities should create more shelters and link unhoused persons to more resources via outreach.

“Housing-focused shelter and outreach will keep people as safe and healthy as possible while we build more affordable housing for people; that’s the path forward,” Oliva informed us. Tars termed the court decision “heartbreaking.” “But we are not done fighting,” he told USA TODAY.

What was the court debating during oral arguments?

During oral arguments on April 22, the judges debated whether being homeless is an inescapable condition or whether sleeping outdoors is a behavior that results from not having a house.

The justices said it would be more appropriate for local and state governments to decide on a homelessness policy rather than having the country’s top court intervene.

In April, several justices pondered whether the court might restrict the case by ruling that the Grants Pass sleeping ban violates a new Oregon statute prohibiting 24-hour prohibitions.

What exactly was the Grants Pass case about?

Grants Pass v. Johnson pitted the homeless population of Grants Pass, Oregon, a town of roughly 40,000, against municipal authorities who said they wished to reclaim control of public parks where around 600 unhoused persons live in tents, beneath tarps, and sleep on tables and benches.

According to Ed Johnson, the public defender who initially handled the case, the majority of the unhoused persons living outdoors in Grants Pass became homeless as the cost of housing increased over the previous several decades. Johnson is not related to Gloria Johnson, the plaintiff in the case.

The city wanted to permanently remove people from parks, but it couldn’t because a 2022 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision ruled that homeless people in areas without enough shelter beds have an Eighth Amendment right not to be punished for living outside and protecting themselves from the elements.

There is no city-run shelter; instead, a church-run program for the homeless includes a shelter where inhabitants must labor. Transitional housing, in the form of a small house village, will open in 2021, but there are only 17 available places. According to service providers, due to an absence of affordable housing in Grants Pass, turnover at the institution is minimal.

The mayor of Grants Pass and certain city council members tried hard to establish a sanctioned campground and a new shelter, but many schemes were derailed due to community opposition. Bristol previously informed USA TODAY that as of this spring, the municipality had no more finances to establish the shelter space required for its unhoused population.

“We need to help establish a place where people can legally sleep, and it’s been a real uphill battle with all kinds of different challenges,” Bristol told reporters in April. To address the issue of homeless encampments in public parks, Grants Pass attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court in April to reverse a Ninth Circuit judgment that prevented unhoused individuals from being punished for sleeping outdoors.

“The Ninth Circuit ties cities’ hands by constitutionalizing the policy debate over how to address growing encampments,” Evangelis said in April when arguing for Grants Pass before the Supreme Court.

Related CTN News:

Should Biden Stand in the 2024 Election? Former Obama advisor offers talks

Ana Wong is a sharp and insightful journalist known for her in-depth reporting on tech and finance. With a knack for breaking down complex topics, she makes them accessible for everyday readers.

News

The Federal Reserve Was Sued By Big Banks Over Annual Stress Tests.

Published

on

Federal Reserve

(VOR News) – A number of financial firms and industry associations have taken legal action against the Federal Reserve of the United States in reaction to the annual stress tests that are administered to banks.

In addition to the American Bankers Association, the Ohio Bankers League, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Bank Policy Institute, which is a group that represents large financial institutions such as JPMorgan, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs, is joining the other organizations in filing the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs have said that the purpose of the action is to “resolve longstanding legal violations by subjecting the stress test process to public input as required by federal law.”

The Federal Reserve litigation aims to achieve this goal.

Despite the fact that the organizations have said that they do not have a negative stance on stress testing, they are of the opinion that the method that is now being utilized is insufficient and “produces vacillating and unexplained requirements and restrictions on bank capital.”

It is standard procedure for the Federal Reserve to carry out a stress test on an annual basis. This test ensures that financial institutions have adequate reserves to cover the risk of bad loans and establishes the maximum amount of share repurchases and dividends that can be distributed.

After the market closed on Monday, the Federal Reserve issued a statement indicating that it is considering adjustments to the stress tests applied to banks.

Additionally, the Federal Reserve will seek public feedback on “significant changes to improve the transparency of its bank stress tests and to reduce the volatility of resulting capital buffer requirements.”

This information was included in the announcement. As a result of “the evolving legal landscape,” the Federal Reserve claimed that it had made the choice to modify the tests. This statement was made in reference to the changes that have taken place in administrative laws over the course of the past several years.

There were no particular modifications that were described in this paper that were provided to the framework of the yearly stress testing before it was implemented. There is a likelihood that the revisions will be regarded as a win by the major banks; yet, it is possible that those modifications will be too little, too late.

Furthermore, it is possible that the revisions will not go far enough to satisfy the concerns of the banks regarding onerous capital requirements. This is a possibility.

The Federal Reserve says the changes will not materially affect capital requirements.

It was stated in a statement that was issued by Greg Baer, the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank of the Philippines, that “The Board’s announcement today is a first step towards transparency and accountability.”

Baer expressed his support for the Federal Reserve’s action. The statement issued by Baer, on the other hand, was a veiled allusion to additional actions. He stated, “We are reviewing it closely and considering additional options to ensure timely reforms that are both good law and good policy.”

The British Bankers Association (BPI) and the American Bankers Association (ABA) are two examples of organizations that have voiced their concerns in the past about the stress test procedure.

The aforementioned organizations have argued that the process is not transparent and has resulted in increasing capital rules, which have a detrimental effect on the lending practices of banks and the expansion of the economy.

The groups claimed in July that the Federal Reserve had broken the Administrative Procedure Act by not asking for public comment on its stress scenarios and by maintaining strict confidentiality about supervising models. Both of these acts were claimed to have happened.

SOURCE: CNBC

SEE ALSO:

American Airlines Has Canceled All Domestic Flights Due to a Technical Issue.

Joe Biden Commutes Sentences For 37 Of The 40 Federal Death Row Prisoners.

Continue Reading

News

American Airlines Has Canceled All Domestic Flights Due to a Technical Issue.

Published

on

American Airlines
Photo: American Airlines

(VOR News) – Due to technical difficulties, American Airlines (AA) was forced to cancel all of its flights departing from the United States on Tuesday morning.

This decision was reached as a result of information that was provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

American Airlines’ findings were based on FAA data.

The airline is currently dealing with a lot of problems as a consequence of a considerable number of customers claiming that their planes have returned to gates after being stopped on runways at a number of different airports.

A decision has been reached by American Airlines to cancel each and every flight that was planned to fly in the United States prior to the implementation of cancellation.

The following is a comment that American Airlines provided in a post that was published on X, which was formerly known as Twitter. Take the following example:

“Our team is working to resolve a technical issue.” Despite the fact that they have not been able to provide an estimated time for the problem to be resolved, the organization has emphasized that they are making every effort to restart operations as quickly as possible.

There have been a number of aircraft throughout the United States that have been grounded as a result of the grounding. Travelers have taken to social media to vent their frustration with the delays and the lack of definite dates for their flights. A great number of flights have been canceled as a direct consequence of the grounding.

In spite of the fact that its technical staff is currently working to solve the system issues, American Airlines continues to handle customer complaints on social media channels.

During the time that they are striving to restart regular operations, the airline is advising passengers who have been affected to return to the airport. Regarding the nature of the technology challenges and the extent of those concerns, there is still a large amount of uncertainty.

There are thousands of customers on American Airlines’ domestic network who are experiencing major implications as a result of this circumstance that is becoming progressively dire.

During the time that they are working to fix the broad system breakdown, the airline is successfully leveraging social media to maintain communication with customer service representatives. As a consequence of this, the airline is able to maintain communication with its passengers.

American Airlines lists other similar examples:

There was a technical problem that happened on Monday at Alaska Airlines (AS), and it had an effect on the entire system. The disruption was directly responsible for the downtime of the company’s website, and as a consequence of the outage, the operations of the aircraft were adjusted.

In an effort to enhance their capacity to retain control over the flow of aircraft, the airline temporarily suspended flights at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport for a period of forty minutes. They adopted this course of action in order to enhance their ability to maintain control.

Due to a technical fault, consumers were unable to book tickets through the contact centers, mobile app, or website of the airline. As a consequence of this, the airline encountered considerable delays in providing satisfactory service to its passengers.

Southwest Airlines (WN) was forced to cancel every flight that was set to depart from various locations across the country earlier this year as a result of a different occurrence that occurred the previous year.

In response to Southwest’s request, the Federal Aviation Administration issued the order to terminate the flight’s operations on the ground. It was necessary to take this action in order to address the difficulties that were brought about by the existing technical impediments.

Southwest Airlines has had more than 1,500 American Airlines flight delays as of late morning Eastern Time, as indicated by the data that was given by Flight Aware. In the United States, this single factor was responsible for more than half of all the delays that were experienced by airplanes.

Please do not forget to stay in touch with us at all times. It is imperative that you follow us on social media in order to guarantee that you are constantly up to date with the most recent information by following us.

SOURCE: AI

SEE ALSO:

Joe Biden Commutes Sentences For 37 Of The 40 Federal Death Row Prisoners.

The IRS Will Give a Million People Up To $1,400. Their Identity—And Why Now?

Continue Reading

News

Joe Biden Commutes Sentences For 37 Of The 40 Federal Death Row Prisoners.

Published

on

Joe Biden
Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

(VOR News) – Joe Biden commuted 37 of 40 federal death row inmates to life without parole. Trump reinstated federal executions after 17 years, according to supporters.

Biden: “Let there be no doubt: I denounce these murderers, mourn their victims, and empathize with all the families who have endured profound and irreparable loss.”

My morals and experiences as a public defender, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, vice president, and president led me to abolish the federal death penalty. I will not allow another administration to violate my ethics.

The president commuted record-high death sentences. Former New Orleans police officer Len Davis was pardoned for running a cocaine protection racket and murdering Kim Groves after she filed a brutality complaint.

In 2022, three killers freed Davis after 28 years in prison.

Groves’ son, Corey, hailed Joe Biden’s commutation of Davis’ death sentence in a brief interview on Monday, saying he wanted the former police officer to serve decades.

“I desire Len to awaken on his 95th birthday still confronted with concrete and barbed wire,” said Groves, who received $1.5 million from the New Orleans city government and family in 2018 for his mother’s death. The president’s actions are worse than death, so I don’t care.

Holder altered his death sentence by murdering a security guard during a dual-participant bank heist. Prosecutors assert that Holder may not have discharged the lethal shot.

Daryl Lawrence was hanged for murdering Bryan Hurst, a Columbus cop. Former officer Donnie Oliverio remarked, “The President acted in accordance with our beliefs and values.” “Executing the individual who murdered my police partner and closest friend would not have afforded me any solace.”

All federal death row inmates save Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who bombed the Boston Marathon in 2013, Dylann Roof, who killed nine Black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015, and Robert Bowers, who slaughtered 11 Jews in a Pittsburgh synagogue in 2018, are eligible for clem

Death Penalty Information Center executive director Robin Maher told The Guardian that 38% of the 40 federal execution detainees are Black. About 25% of the offenders were under 21.

Bryan Stevenson, founder and executive director of the non-profit Equal Justice Initiative, said: “Today signifies a crucial juncture in abolishing America’s tragic and flawed application of the death penalty.

Joe Biden claims the death penalty doesn’t improve public safety.

Son of Martin Luther King Jr.: “This is a historic day.” Reflecting the death penalty’s racially biased origins and unfairness, Joe Biden commuted these sentences, unlike any other president.

Biden has trouble with this. He supported a 1994 criminal measure introducing 60 death penalty charges as a senator. He said, “I am the individual who incorporated these capital punishments into this legislation.” The death penalty led to enormous incarceration, especially of Black men.

Presidential candidate Joe Biden promised to end federal capital punishment in 2020. He criticized unfair convictions and court racism.

The Biden administration stopped federal executions properly. The president has been requesting to commute federal death sentences in recent weeks. Corrections officials, CEOs, Black clergy, Catholics, civil and human rights advocates, prosecutors, former judges, and victim families wrote to him. Pope Francis publicly pushed President Joe Biden to pardon US death suspects.

Joe Biden’s decision will prevent future administrations from executing people.

Trump executed more federal convicts than the previous ten. The Republican administration executed Daniel Lewis Lee after 17 years and six others from July 16–September 24, 2020.

Two Democrats who supported bicameral federal death penalty ban legislation praised Monday’s announcement.

Senate Judiciary Committee head and majority whip Dick Durbin said, “I have consistently supported the elimination of the federal death penalty and commend President Joe Biden for this act of justice and mercy, as well as for his leadership.”

Massachusetts Representative Ayanna Pressley termed Joe Biden decision a “historic and groundbreaking act of compassion that will save lives, rectify profound racial disparities in our criminal justice system, and convey a potent message regarding redemption, decency, and humanity

The White House claims Biden has granted more commutations than his first-term predecessors. He set a record by pardoning 1,500 inmates and promising community safety for one day this month.

The first president to pardon marijuana users and LGBTQ+ service troops for sexual orientation-related offenses was Joe Biden.

The president pardoned his son Hunter for federal weapons and tax charges that might have led him to prison earlier this month, triggering a political storm. Biden denied pardon twice before leaving office on January 20.

SOURCE: TG

SEE ALSO:

The IRS Will Give a Million People Up To $1,400. Their Identity—And Why Now?

Trump Takes Aim at Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Continue Reading

Trending